User talk:Dooyar

Welcome!

Hello, Dooyar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Harlowraman 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue making uncited changes to the Karyn Kupcinet page. Calling it a compromise version is meaningless. Neither you nor the other party have a claim to the article.BillyJoelFan 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing in

Hi, and thanks for your additions to the Gilda Radner article. I just wanted to let you know that it isn't so much that you were working on the article from the library as it was that you weren't signed in. There has been a LOT of vandalism from the LA Public Library that I'm always wary of anonymous edits from there. Keep up the good work and just remember to sign in!! Wildhartlivie 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Joplin

Please be advised I am reporting this for WP:3RR violations. An editor is not free to continually revert good faith edits of others in order to maintain the material he or she has added, especially in the context of dispute over POV and content. Wildhartlivie 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Wildhartlivie 06:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, a request for outside comment has been filed on this section. Secondly, WP policy does NOT require 10 or 15 other editors to be a consensus. Your work is not being destroyed and contributions to WP are no longer your property. If you can't take having your contributions edited, then perhaps you shouldn't be making them. Thirdly, you are now in violation of WP:3RR and have been reported for it. Such violations can result in your being banned from Wikipedia. We have both made good faith efforts to discuss this with you to no avail. Wildhartlivie 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you, Wildhartlivie. If you can't accept my latest changes, then perhaps you shouldn't make anymore. You are in violation of WP:3RR because I have reported you for it. Dooyar 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

You seem to think that I'm out to get you, which is in no way the truth. I am trying to make this a good article. As it stands, it doesn't qualify as one. I did not violate WP:3RR. In fact, I left it as it was until consensus was reached regarding the content. Report if you want, working on an article that took several edits is not the same thing as deliberately violating the 3RR rule. I am, in a very nice way, reminding you that Wikipedia has a policy regarding conduct towards other editors and you were cautioned about showing incivility. Wildhartlivie 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Janis Joplin. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. KrakatoaKatie 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made edit summaries at Janis Joplin and Karyn Kupcinet containing statements such as "I won't back down" and "I can keep this up as long as you can", which are not helpful and border on incivility. If you are not willing to have your words edited mercilessly by others, you should not edit Wikipedia. Please return in 24 hours ready to compromise and work with other editors. Thank you. - KrakatoaKatie 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say, "I won't back down." I am reporting facts in both Kupcinet and Joplin articles. The coroner who said Kupcinet had been strangled was a screwed - up doctor. That's a fact. Janis Joplin said people had no right to dose others with LSD without their permission. That's a fact. Dooyar 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooya[reply]

The issue is not whether the information itself is factual, the issue is the way in which it is being presented, which is POV and sensationalized. The request for comments consensus was to keep the "Points of view" title and opening that was there. It's a problem when the first thing you do when you come back is charge in and change it again. You are still trying to imply an air of animosity between Joplin and the rest of the musicians of the time. Making a statement doesn't imply "passionate disagreement." We are trying to keep a neutral point of view in this article and using words that cannot be verified is not neutral. I got out my copies of Janis bios and check the references. The word passionate does not exist in it. The title, as you've changed it, generalizes one or two issues to cover everything about the two sides, which also does not exist.

I did not report the 3RR issue regarding Karyn Kupcinet, that issue was discovered by the administrator when checking my report. However, you, in fact, did say you would not back down, on your revision of Janis Joplin on your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janis_Joplin&oldid=166925481. The consensus was garnered the correct way, through the proper channels. An article should be written in a NPOV way. These new changes to the same thing that just went through consensus is arbitrary. My next step will be to take it to dispute resolution with no hesitation. Wildhartlivie 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with a new compromise for that heading. "Points of view" is bland and it ignores all the hard work Janis did and the encouragement she gave to others who worked hard such as a young aspiring album cover artist named Phil Hartman. I changed it to "Belief In Freedom With Responsibility Despite Others Saying 'Without.' " As for your dispute of the word "passionately," what word would you use instead to summarize Janis' yelling at people for slacking and for dosing people with LSD without consent ? "Yelling" becomes repetitive. Begging a man for love was NOT the only issue about which she was passionate. Dooyar 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

See the talk page. :) Though I didn't address "passionately." I know it will seem weak to you, but I suggest "firmly". Wildhartlivie 08:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

We must talk!! I would love it if you would go read WP:REF, which tells what types of material is used for references and how they are supposed to be written. This and this aren't WP approved references and styles. Also, there are no spaces between the end of a word/punctuation/etc. and where the reference < starts. Someone will have to come along after you and correct those things, which is a huge effort. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I am not using Harvard referencing even though it is allowed. Is that what you think I'm doing ? Dooyar 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

No, no. Let's look at what you put in your two references.

You can hear this audio segment whenever the Biography channel repeats the Biography (TV series) episode on Janis Joplin. What you hear her and Bonnie Bramlett say matches exactly what David Dalton quotes them as saying in his book Piece Of My Heart, published by St. Martin's Press in 1985. He explains that he didn't plan on taping their conversation until Janis yelled at him to do it.

A reference needs to tell specific things. The tag on the Biography channel inclusion is asking for information on the Biography special. For example (and I'm making it up): Biography Channel: Janis Joplin. "Kozmic Blue." Aired 14 September 2003. Or in this case, maybe just the reference in the Dalton book is enough with leaving the Biography reference off of it.

Rolling Stone issue # 71 dated November 26, 1970, a 16 millimeter film of the First Tuesday segment is available at the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, Maryland and possibly in other libraries, and finally, Myra Friedman cites interviews with both Joplin parents in the early chapters of her book. Myra also interviewed other residents of Port Arthur.

In this case, you're lumping what would 3 or 4 separate citations into one, yet still not giving specifics on it. If you got info from the Rolling Stone issue, it needs to be written out in the correct format: Author's name by last, first. Article Title. Rolling Stone. 26 November 1970. Specifics on the First Tuesday segment itself, not where it's housed. Then the Friedman citation. But the way these are presented, all in all, it's sort of saying "Here's where you can find it, go look it up." It's detailed, but not specific enough. Instead, partly, you're telling us where Dalton and Friedman got it. Does this make sense? Wildhartlivie 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally. What do you want me to say about the First Tuesday television magazine that ran briefly on NBC so many years ago ? Do you want to know the exact date of the Joplin segment, which I suspect was the first Tuesday in January or February of 1971 ? The Nielsen rating it got ? The only thing worse than trying to write about a very old television show is trying to write about a very old television show that nobody watches, remembers or cares about in the era of 500 cable channels. I saw a 16 millimeter film copy of the Joplin segment that is available from the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. I know what I saw and heard, and it was many years after its 1971 broadcast. Both of Janis' parents were on the screen talking inside their Port Arthur home. I can't pay for your plane fare to Baltimore, and 16 millimeter projectors are no longer manufactured. The ones that are still in use don't work very well. Lighten up, please. Dooyar 00:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

Why would the 1970 interview with Seth Joplin, done a short time after he lost his daughter, need an author ? It's one of those long, verbatim Rolling Stone interviews. I gave you the date of the magazine along with the issue number, which is how the magazine refers to its old issues. RS71 is the one. David Dalton wasn't the one who interviewed the singer's father. Mr. Dalton is the person who has a tape recording of Janis' conversation with Bonnie Bramlett, a portion of which I heard while I watched the Biography (TV series) hour on Janis. It matches exactly the transcript of their dialogue that he reprints in his 1985 book Piece Of My Heart, and I cited that in a footnote. The Biography hour on Joplin has been repeated so many times, on two different basic cable channels, that finding its first broadcast would be difficult. Again, lighten up, please.

And where did Myra Friedman get her interviews with Mr. and Mrs. Joplin that she cites many times in the early chapters of her book ? Where do you think ? She lived far away from Port Arthur, but she traveled there with a tape recorder. She didn't need a rock music promoter to accompany her to the interview. The rock singer she was discussing with several Port Arthur residents, including the parents, was dead at the time. There were no concerts, just storytelling and electronic recordings. This is getting to be like reinventing the wheel. I'm starting to envy people who can afford excellent car sound systems that do justice to Janis and other singers. Time to get a second job. Anything would be better than THIS crap. Dooyar 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar Dooyar 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

You have to be flexible here. The mandate isn't that an author be mentioned, but most articles in Rolling Stone DO have an author. The issue is the format in which you are presenting what you are submitting as references. If you put material in the article which you yourself got from the Rolling Stone interview, then it has to be properly referenced. What I'm trying to explain to you is that the way you formatted the reference isn't proper. If you got the material from Dalton's book, then you can't put Rolling Stone in the reference, just Dalton's book. The same goes for the rest of it. If you heard a conversation on the Biography show, then cite it, but present it properly.

It's not a matter of lightening up. It's a matter of properly presenting sources in a format that is approved by Wikipedia. The long explanation of all the different places its been, presented as a paragraph with a reference tag, isn't according to WP:CITE guidelines. Tell me one other article on here that has citations the way these two were written. You cannot cite something that you yourself did not read, but heard on a tv show, without citing the TV show. And the particulars of when a specific episode on Biography can be found. Otherwise, you're putting forth original research. Dalton and Freidman and the man on the moon can have tapes of those things, but you can only cite sources that you have or have read. You can't use them as references because the source you read used them. But overall, my point is that the citations have to be put forth in the proper format. I'm sorry that you find this so tiresome, but this isn't an essay. It's an encyclopedia article and there are specific guidelines for these things. Wildhartlivie 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I cited the television show: "First Tuesday." You will find that in the footnote. I know it aired in early 1971, but I don't know the exact date. Obviously, it was the first Tuesday of a month. What else do you want ? The Nielsen rating it got ? I give up. If people want to, they can believe that everyone who ever died young of a drug overdose believed, "Everybody must get stoned" and they were survived by inarticulate, stupid, cocktail-gulping parents. Just like on Jack Webb's TV show "Dragnet." Webb was a documentary filmmaker, right ? Write what you want. I give up. Dooyar 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

No, you didn't cite it. You lumped it into a statement with other things. If you had cited it, you would have given more than that. There's no point in being sarcastic about it. This is the reason I asked you to read WP:CITE. I don't know what First Tuesday is. Apparently it's a TV show. Where did this information come from? Did you see First Tuesday? If so, where? What channel. If you didn't, where did you find mention of it? If it's a tv show, then you'd cite it something to the effect of: "Duet". Stargate Atlantis. 5 August 2005. No. 4, season 2.

The sentence you wrote says: "Several weeks later the parents gave long interviews to Rolling Stone, the NBC news magazine First Tuesday and Joplin's publicist-turned-biographer Myra Friedman." So, you lumped the citations for the entire sentence into one massive reference. There should be a citation after Rolling Stone, after First Tuesday and after Friedman. This is because WP:CITE tells you that you must tell where you got this information so that others can verify it. For First Tuesday, you tell the reader to go to the library in Baltimore, MD. If you saw it at that library, there is a card/computer entry, which gives all the info necessary to cite it. If you just read it in a book, then you must cite the book. Until then, this information needs to come out. I am trying to guide you into being a better editor with this. I don't have to, I could just take it out and not even try to guide you on how to cite things. Wildhartlivie 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it out if you want. This is a very popular article that is attracting many vandals, several of whom have changed other stuff I put in it. I told you three times that I watched this television segment. I did not read a summary of it in a book or magazine. I saw and heard it. I remember what Janis' parents were wearing and what their eyeglass frames were like. I did not tell the reader to go to the library in Baltimore. I said there is a 16 millimeter film copy of it there, which doesn't mean it's the only library that has it. It could be in a lot of libraries.

Since you evidently never have been to the Baltimore library, then don't assume it has a "card/computer entry." I checked out the reel of 16 millimeter film in 1984 after finding the title "Janis Joplin" in the film catalog. I told the film clerk (it wasn't a librarian) that I wanted to check out that title, and he returned with it a few minutes later. All he needed was the title. I supplied the 16 millimeter projector, which I no longer own. (Do YOU know anyone who owns one ?) Several years later (1992), I heard a radio interview with Janis' sister Laura, promoting her book Love, Janis, in which a phone caller asked her if she recalled that 60 Minutes segment from shortly after Janis' death. Laura corrected him, saying it came from a primitive NBC news magazine show titled "First Tuesday." They both remembered the same comment I remember Janis' mother making, that Janis chose the blues out of several vocal styles she was capable of performing. She could have even tried opera. That's the same TV documentary, and it wasn't "60 Minutes."

I will try to split up those footnotes, but I can't guarantee it. This article is so popular that I could be 90 percent done with typing the changes and then the system tells me I am in an "edit war." The next time that happens, I am going to give up and let people assume that Janis, like everyone else who used hard drugs in the late 1960s, was a lot like a "Dragnet" character, and her parents were that dumb, too. I will stick with her music. You can make friends by talking about someone's music, but not by talking about First Tuesday. Dooyar 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

Update a few minutes later: Alright, I split up the footnote into three separate ones. There is no card catalog number for the 16 millimeter film of the First Tuesday NBC television segment. Just go to the film library and ask for Janis Joplin: Portrait of a Ripoff. It was broadcast shortly after the January 1971 release of Joplin's posthumous Pearl album, which got a lot of publicity because she was recently dead at the time. If this is not good enough, I give up. You won't hear from me again. Other stuff I put in this very popular article was deleted by Wikipedia regulars -- are they considered vandals ? I don't care anymore. Dooyar 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

First of all, there is little vandalism on this article. There are several editors making changes, and if they don't happen to agree with you, it doesn't make them vandals. Next, stating that you watched a television segment is not sufficient referencing. And saying you watched it in Baltimore in 1984 isn't one either. This borders on original research since you are working from memory 23 years old. This just isn't enough information to make it encyclopedic. Any material written for an objectively based must be verifiable. You can explain all this until you are blue in the face and it still isn't providing acceptable citations.

You keep taking examples I offer as a demand to give the reference in that way. I am not asking that. But, what I am saying is that if there is a 16 mm film out there that you saw, then somewhere, there is information about what it was, where it appeared, who did it, or specifically, when it was. It is in some file, somewhere. I appreciate the fact that you can recall it, but that isn't good enough to give in a citation, and if it can't be verified, it can't be used.

Next, there is absolutely no excuse for you to make sensationalistic statements about what people will think about Janis Joplin or her parents if you, personally, don't take it upon yourself to correct them. You aren't the only person in the world to have taken an interest in Joplin over the years and read and researched her. The difference is, some of us are trying to present this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Wildhartlivie 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a news magazine produced by NBC and broadcast by NBC. I said it originated in 1971. I saw it more than once in the 1980s. How would you like it if someone doubted your memory of watching a TV documentary ? I know what I saw and heard. I never claimed to remember every word of it. I said it had soundbite interviews with both of Janis' parents. You seem like a confused person. Please leave me alone. Dooyar 07:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar[reply]

I am not doubting that you saw it or your memory of it. That isn't the problem. The problem is that in order to use it, it has to be verifiable, and a person's memory isn't quantifiable. The article needs a verifiable reference for the show if mention of the show is in the article. So long as you are working on this article, and I am working on this article, I will be where you are. I am not communicating with you in order to get close to you or be buddies. I am communicating regarding problems inherent in the edits you are making on this article. I'm not in the least confused, I am attempting to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in regards to this article. Further, statements like the last two that you have above simply violate WP:CIVIL which could get you blocked again. I am trying to explain to you a very simple process, which is correct formats of citation. It comes down to this. Put your references in the correct format or it's highly likely they will be removed. Wildhartlivie 08:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I have moved this issue from the article's talk page because that is the recommended procedure. While I realize that you feel passionately about some of the topics that you edit on, please don't confuse my editing or issues that I bring up about edits as a personal matter. It isn't personal. As I said, so long as I am working on an article that you are, we will cross paths and as it seems, bump heads on issues. That being said, I do find your recent comments about me personally to be offensive. They constitute personal attacks and I will not accept that. You accused me of vandalism when instead I was making edits with which you don't agree, both in edit summaries, on talk pages and in your editor assistance request. You refer to me as a confused person when I tried to communicate with you over style and content issues. You referred to me as unstable in your editor assistance request and called me ignorant on the Karyn Kupcinet talk page and further implied that if no one replies to your attack on this talk page that it is my fault. Other editors have taken a break from working on this article because of the stress that is involved with it, long before I arrived at it. You have even accused me of reverting edits made (and can be verified from the page's history) by persons who edited before I started work on it and implied it was my fault that they left. You referred to my comments regarding issues as spouting garbage. Finally, you accused me of threatening you even though what I did was remind you of Wikipedia policies that can be grounds for blocking, as you were before (see above). This all constitutes personal attacks that are totally and completely unacceptable behavior on your part. Please be advised that if these personal attacks do not stop, I will take further steps to assure that it does not continue, through the appropriately ascribed Wikipedia procedures and policies. Wildhartlivie 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments about the Los Angeles County sheriffs to be personally offensive. You said they engage in "gossip" when investigating a murder. How would you like it if someone in your family was murdered and someone labeled what people said about it "gossip?" Also, your removal of my stuff about coroner Harold Kade contradicts what Gamaliel, whose position in Wikipedia is higher than yours, said about it. He/she said it can stay in the article as long as it is sourced. It is. Harold Kade performed the autopsy on Karyn Kupcinet, therefore negative information about his job performance is relevant. Dooyar 21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't a member of the Los Angeles County sheriffs department and didn't work on the Kupcinet case, then you can't be personally offended. How do you know that WHL hasn't had a member of the family murdered and had people talk about it? I read what Gamamiel said about this too. He didn't tell you that you can put anything you like in an article as long as you put a source on it. Sources have to be specific. I looked at the sources you noted, and I didn't see anything about Kade making a mistake on Karyn Kupcinet's autopsy and I didn't see anything saying that her autopsy was called into question, not to mention how many other hundreds of autopsies he did around the time she died and before. That's what you have to put in as a source if you want to suggest he screwd up hers: something that says he might have. Anything else is just guessing. AndToToToo 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a member of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs' Office. I'm not a member of the Mormon Church, either. Yet I have the right to feel offended when someone says every single Mormon man is a misogynist who sees every woman as a baby - making machine. I have the right to defend law enforcement officers against the charge that their hard work consists of gossip. Maybe they never solved the Kupcinet case, but their hard work has made the world safer for you and me and our parents. If I were defending an extremist like a Ku Klux Klan member, then I would understand you pointing out that I ain't in the Klan. But sheriffs aren't extremists. Some make mistakes and commit crimes, but they are highly regarded by crime victims who get the satisfaction of seeing their tormentors get locked up.

You point out that newspaper articles reporting Dr. Harold Kade's egregious mistakes, one of which put an innocent man in jail for five months, say nothing about Kupcinet, therefore they aren't relevant to her case. If the articles said he was a careless driver who got off work one night and then crashed his car into a truck carrying tissue samples to another lab for analysis, thereby making that person's death a total mystery, then your point would be valid. An accident that Dr. Kade might have caused when he wasn't on the timeclock tells us nothing about his competence while he was on the clock. We know he was on the clock when he put an innocent man in jail for five months. We know he was on the clock when he screwed up another case that was unrelated to that unfortunate man. Therefore his screwy actions while he was working are relevant to yet another mysterious death that he was supposed to solve but didn't (Kupcinet). At least he didn't solve it to the satisfaction of those gossip queens known as sheriffs. If they didn't cut open her dead body, then they knew nothing, right? The woman's father didn't see the autopsy, either, and he actually was considered a gossiper by some people, so to hell with him, too. Right ?

With your cockeyed logic, I can add a comment Richard Nixon made about Robert Kennedy's alleged relationship with Marilyn Monroe to the articles about Kennedy and Monroe, and anyone who adds a few words about Nixon's dishonesty can get banned from Wikipedia for 48 hours. Nixon did, in fact, make a brief comment about Kennedy-Monroe when he was interviewed for 60 Minutes in 1984, ten years after he resigned. Video and audio of it exist, but I, for one, never will add it to Wikipedia. If I did, Wildhartlivie would want a footnote citation that identifies the producer of the segment and what he ate for breakfast on the day it aired. Someone else would remove it on the basis that as long as it had nothing to do with China, anything Nixon said about others' flaws was a lie. That's good enough for me, but you're just going to say Watergate was a separate entity that had nothing to do with Kennedy or Monroe, therefore Nixon could have said they were both transsexuals and that's legitimate.

Someone's going to tell gullible kids who read Wikipedia what that great man said about an emotionally fragile actress he never met. Again, your logic is cockeyed. Unlike Monroe, whose autopsy was performed by a relatively competent doctor named Noguchi, Karyn Kupcinet was permanently screwed up by a klutz. Deal with it. If you keep banning his klutziness, maybe you can delete the entire article about Jack Kevorkian. How do you know your body will be treated fairly the next time you visit a medical doctor ? You don't. If you're dead you don't complain. Deal with it. Life sucks. People screw up everywhere, even in a room full of fresh corpses. Dooyar (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (2)

I have blocked you for 48 hours for personal attacks, incivility and general hostility against Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). Unacceptable comments include "Please get some counselling. (...) You need some help", "Don't let this unstable Wikipedia contributor revert your edits. After all the garbage spouted (...)". General incivility and hostility include baseless sockpuppetry accusations, this diff and this diff. These are not exhaustive lists.
Wikipedia is a collaborate environment. Please rethink your attitudes towards other users on this site. Various avenues of dispute resolution exist if a dispute is not being resolved by talk page discussion with the other user. I apologise if you feel that Wildhartlivie should be the one being blocked, but over the past couple of weeks two impartial administrators have come to the conclusion that it is you that needs to change. – Steel 14:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Wikipedia is a collaborative (sic) environment, and one of the collaborators is named "Gamaliel." Maybe you've heard of this person, who disputes Wildhartlivie's claim that Harold Kade is irrelevant to the Kupcinet article. Gamaliel has said he is relevant as long as the claims about him are sourced. They are. If you've read the article you would know Dr. Kade performed the autopsy on Kupcinet. You don't have to be passionately invested in the subject to know that. Just read it. Dooyar 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us where Gamamiel directly disputes that Kade is irrelevant to the article. There's nothing in the history that shows that he said that. Gamamiel said that citations are needed. He didn't say that you can just put a citation up and make it say that something happened that didn't. None of the sources I looked at said that Kade's autopsy of Kupcinet was questioned when he left his position. None of them said that it was questioned at all. So how does that translate into him making a mistake 2 years earlier? AndToToToo 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It translates because I keep trying to add a second source on Kade. It, too, keeps getting removed. It's James Ellroy's book Crime Wave. It says more than one county sheriff thought Kade was an incompetent doctor who could have been the one who broke Karyn Kupcinet's neck. That's right, she could have died from something unrelated to that "injury," then Dr. Kade could have broken her neck himself and then cited that as the cause of death. Don't believe me ? It's in James Ellroy's book. His sources are the sheriffs who held that belief about Dr. Kade. Did you ever meet Dr. Harold Kade ? You can't now. He's dead. Dooyar (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Pinkadelica 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few paragraphs above yours, Steel busted me for accusing Wildhartlivie of sockpuppetry. Now you're accusing me of it. You don't want to get banned for 24 hours, do you? This paragraph that I'm writing now consists of seven short sentences. I'm not longwinded, so what's the problem ? I'm cutting to the chase. Try it. -- Dooyar (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please refrain from making such statements like "If you enjoy acting without compassion for a dead person who is largely unknown today, please feel free to add it." There's no call for a remark like that, regardless of how heated discussion is getting. Also, please refrain from using my name to justify your arguments when I've made no comment or an unrelated comment on the matter. I see that you have been blocked by two other administrators for your conduct. I don't wish be the third administrator to block you, nor do I wish to continue to play chaperone to this minor article, so I really wish you would start to restrain yourself when it comes to other editors. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, a fact-finding person, who easily can be compassionate, is welcome to add Karyn Kupcinet's 1962 shoplifting arrest and conviction to the article. I won't do it. It never has been there -- not in any of the hundreds of edits I have read.

Here are my reasons for omitting that example of her negative behavior.

-- The article is long enough as it is.

-- The article already delineates negative stuff she did in 1963, closer to her death.

-- She did her shoplifting in the town of Pomona, California. There is no published source explaining why she would have been there in view of the fact that she could not drive a car. The Ellroy book says that in 1962 she dated one David Wallerstein who lived in Pomona. Ellroy says his love for her was unrequited, but he doesn't connect her presence in Wallerstein's hometown to the shoplifting. My doing that would be original research. His name never has been in the article as far I can determine.

Oh, and #4 -- One of the items Karyn shoplifted, according to a 1963 Los Angeles Times article, was a book on philosophy that cost something like two dollars. So, out of compassion for Wikipedia readers as well as for Karyn's memory, I will not dangle a philosophy book or a police station in Pomona (far away from the LAPD) in front of anyone. I'm letting the 45-year-old minor incident rest in peace. Many people have shoplifted, including Janis Joplin, whose Wiki article omits her arrest even though a police mug shot of her before she became famous can be found in an old book that is still in print.

Bye now. Didn't mean to provoke you. Have you read the latest version of Kupcinet ? Dooyar 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Lawrence

The additions you made to this article were quite good, and as you said in the edit summary, quite NPOV. I wondered if you had more information on a point you added to the lead, which was about the roles she played (characters that dealt with the controversial topics of race relations, atheism and psychoanalysis) that could round out her career section more. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race relations had a lot to do with The King and I. Atheism was in Susan and God. Psychoanalysis was in Lady In The Dark. It would be difficult to summarize in the "Career" section of the article how those plays treated those topics that were controversial in that era. Dooyar 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karyn Kupcinet

I haven't read over the changes you've made to this article yet, but that isn't necessary to ask the question I have. What I'm wondering, after everything that has has transpired with this page, and you knowing that there are two other editors who have worked quite diligently on it, is why you didn't at least bring up such an extensive rewrite on the talk page before you dived right in to it? That is what collaboration and cooperation in working on an article is all about. It's what Wikipedia asks of its editors. We've tried, over and over, to establish such an atmosphere on this page, but to no avail. After the rework last week, the other two of us were quite satisfied with what the page had to say. We had discussed depending so heavily on James Ellroy's book and hoping for outside sources besides his. If you'd looked on the talk page you would have seen that we had agreed that we were happy with it as it was until other sources could be found. By simply ignoring us and delving into this rework, you have again circumvented consensus on the progress of the page. What is it going to take to get you to work with us instead of around us, behind us, and independently of any collaboration on this article? Wildhartlivie 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please read it before you change it back entirely to your version of last week. It does not depend more heavily on Ellroy's book than yours. After consolidating all the Ellroy footnotes into A, B, C, etc. the dependence might seem heavy, but you will note I left all the other sources intact save one that misquoted James Ellroy. In the section for "Accidental death," someone used a source other than Ellroy's book for his supposed claim that Karyn could have "clipped her hyoid bone on a coffee table." The primary source for Ellroy's claims is his book, and if you check it you find that he said "chair," not "coffee table."

Why didn't I "bring up such an extensive rewrite on the talk page before" I dove into it ? Because that's impossible. Someone planning to make several changes can't possibly announce, "I'm going to do this, this and this ..." As I said, the new version is not as radical a change as you seem to be implying. Please read it before you object. For example, I preserved the "Personal life" section but added a subheading of "Issues with relationships" above the paragraph on her obsession with Andrew Prine. Without that subheading, you have just the one subheading of "Drug abuse." One subheading looks bad. I changed "Drug abuse" to "Possible eating disorder" because "Drug abuse" can imply narcotics, and no evidence exists that Karyn had a stoner mentality. Evidence, including the block quote I added from her 1962 Los Angeles Times interview, points more to her wanting to please everybody with a thin body. That's the classic litany of an "eating disordered actress" (as Ellroy called her on the first page of his chapter on her), but I made sure to say "Possible eating disorder."

Again, please read this version before you change it back entirely to your version of last week. Some of the edits were minor, such as my moving a comma from outside the end quotation mark to inside it, and my moving a period the same way.

Of course, you can collaborate. And again, I only changed one footnote because the source misquoted James Ellroy. If you're sick and tired of his book, you can't use a magazine article that misquotes him (a coffee table versus a chair). I did not remove a single sourced statement from your version of last week. I changed one source from another journalist's take on Ellroy's words to Ellroy's actual words in his book. Everything he ever said about Kupcinet can be found in his book and in an online interview with him from 2001 that someone removed from this article many edits ago, and I won't put that one back. (In the online interview he denounced the JFK connection.) Dooyar 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution. In my experience, articles get better through such disputes. There is a reason why there is a dispute, and that is usually because the article is not balanced enough. There are going to be decisions I recommend that you will support, and some that you will not support. Somehow we will work our way through to a hardened and brilliant article. I would strongly urge you to focus entirely on the article and refrain from commenting on the other editors involved no matter what they say or do. I will give this message to the other editors as well. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dooyar. Do you accept the wording "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide, has never been solved"? Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those words seem fine to me. You know how our article, under the heading "Alleged connection to JFK," says Penn Jones, Jr. connected Kupcinet to an Associated Press story that ran in the Toronto Star-Telegram ?

Here is a succinct update on that part of the mystery. I got it for free today at a branch of the Los Angeles City library system. You can get it online by paying with your credit card at this site.

www.NewspaperArchive.com

This newspaper archive covers the papers in small towns only, not a big city like Toronto or Dallas. At least two small newspapers ran that AP item. So far, in the keyword search I did after some brainstorming, I got hits in two small California papers: the Long Beach Independent (later merged with another paper) and Daily Review in Hayward, which has the same name today. Here are the first three paragraphs. Do any contributors want more ? We won't put it in the article, but maybe it would help to know which Associated Press article you are citing in it.

Caller Predicted Slaying

OXNARD (AP) -- A telephone company executive said Friday that 20 minutes before President Kennedy was assassinated a woman caller was overheard whispering:

"The President is going to be killed."

Ray Sheehan said the woman "seemed to be a little bit disturbed." Besides predicting the President's death, he said, she "mumbled several incoherent things." Dooyar (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Dandridge

Please do not simply rollback this article again. You do not hold the copyright on this material and your actions are arbitrary and do not take into consideration the editing, corrections, maintenance tags, book reference corrections and other work that has been done on it. The Mike Douglas Show material was NOT, I repeat, NOT removed from the article. It was moved up to the personal life section. The ENTIRE article was tagged for improved references, not simply one section. As I have said to you on more than one occasion, if you do not want to see your contributions edited, then don't make them. You have given no rationale for removing all of the work done to the article, again, which includes spelling & punctuation corrections, corrections to the formats in the bibliography section and bot added maintenance tag corrections. This is unacceptable and cannot continue. Instead of rolling back to YOUR earlier version, I encourage you to take a moment to address the issues that were raised on the article's talk page regarding the material. Again, I removed NOTHING from the article at this time, so your actions can be viewed as nothing more than arbitrary tendentious editing with no consideration for the integrity of the article. Please desist from such disruptive editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next stage - Irv Kupcinet

Hi Dooya. Would this sentence: "Roberta Lynn Kupcinet was born on 6 March 1941 in Chicago, Illinois to Irv Kupcinet, a sportswriter for the Chicago Daily Times, and his wife, Esther "Essee" Solomon Kupcinet." be acceptable? And to remove this sentence: "When she was seven, a merger created the Chicago Sun-Times and her father's column helped launch the newspaper." as not directly related to Kupcinet. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence containing the Chicago Daily Times sounds fine. No, I don't think you should remove the sentence about the merger when she was seven. If you say her father was a sportswriter when she was born, you have to devote a few words to upgrading him to his important position as the preeminent Chicago gossip columnist. That high rank depended on the merger of the Daily Times with the Sun. The merger created a new paper that featured the 36 - year - old columnist prominently. Without her father's influence, Karyn would not have gotten the acting jobs she got. Dooyar (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working document

I have made the Kupcinet working document available to folks so that final adjustments can be made before unlocking the main article. Please have a look and make the adjustments you feel are needed: User:SilkTork/Cambridge. If you are happy with this version, let me know and we can unlock the article. Best wishes. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Johnnie Ray. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. When you roll back an article over several intermediate edits, 7 in this case, with the flimsy edit summary addressing only one small point in the intervening edits, is unacceptable and is not something new that you've just started doing. If you want to add back some of this material, it will need better citations than what most of it has. Meanwhile, some of it is not relevant to this particle article. I'd be glad to open a dispute resolution over this article. Meanwhile, add things systematically and desist from rolling back articles on a blanket basis. You ignore other changes on the page when you do this, and with no justification. Others have the right to make edits on articles and no one is obliged to retain the last version you approve. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Ray / "mediation"

We would love to hear your comments here. - Revolving Bugbear 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Illinois University

On February 14, at 21:37, you made an edit and used the following edit summary: I added more details from Yahoo news dispatches. "Wildhartlivie," please say something on the Discussion page before you revert them. diff

Please desist from using edit summaries to convey hostile personal messages. Such a summary implies that I had been involved in editing the article in question and that you expect that I would arbitrarily revert your edits. Please contain your animosity and do not use edit summaries personally against me anymore. Because you have been blocked in the past for incivility and hostility towards me and you have difficulty containing your comments now, perhaps it is time that a user behavior inquiry be opened regarding your behavior towards me while using this username and the others which you have used on Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:29, 21 February 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) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ann-Margret In 1976.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ann-Margret In 1976.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]