This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ilena. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Ilena, 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fyslee21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Warnings
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Stephen Barrett, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- Fyslee19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please try to write in a measured, nuanced, encyclopedic and factual way. Excessive and tendentious edits might disturb the work of other editors and be reverted. You might find reading WP:POV useful in this respect. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Fyslee20:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop using Wikipedia for personal attacks
It is a well-known fact that you hate certain people. Take it elsewhere, like Usenet. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on your attacks. -- Fyslee22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Final warnings
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Fyslee18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Linkspam
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine211206:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Barrett's propensity to change history will not be tolerated.'
I have added pertinent and relevant information, with appropriate links.
What the EFF says is FAR more relevant than one of Barrett's publicists.
Every word I wrote is accurate.
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Ronz00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I find an enormous amount of bias here for Barrett. It is NOT my point of view that NCAHF was suspended by the State of California, nor is it my point of view that NO ONE has shown any proof whatsoever that is a legal corporation capable of accepting donations that it solicits in Massachusetts.
When I first began reading here a few days ago, the FACTS regarding Barrett's case against me were absolutely falsely stated from their desired point of view.
I do not understand why you continue to protect the fact that NCAHF was suspended.
Ilena, just what do you think the suspension means? You keep including it as if you think it was something that passes Wikipedia's notability and trivia guidelines. (BTW, notice the sig is always placed at the end of the comment, not at the beginning. Just four tildes, nothing more, and nothing less.) -- Fyslee23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ilena, it seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Ronz01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. You advertise the loser, Barrett's website and remove pertinent websites around my winning side of this case.
Is there no one at Wikipedia to be encyclopedic and not make Wikipedia another Barrett bullied front group?
How can Ronz remove my sites and add Barrett's and call this "unbiased." Ilena
When will you ever try to be taken seriously here? Until you start learning and practicing the way things are done here, you're not going to get much sympathy or cooperation. Formatting your entries properly would be a good place to start. Do like others. Indent properly, sign properly. Signature goes at the end, with the time stamp. Just use four tildes, no more, no less, and don't violate the rules here by spamming each entry with your website, and stop attacking other editors. If you start behaving, even I will cooperate with you! I'll leave a standard welcoming message at the top. It has some good pointers. -- Fyslee21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ronz05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Please also note that external links should not be included with your signature. --Ronz05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks. Your posts about me on your web site may be considered a negative factor in decisions as to whether your violations of WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SPAM are serious enough to warrant blocks or bans. (I should point out that, if I were making such decisions, I'd keep your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia under advisement, even if that unfamiliarity is somewhat willfull. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to be little more gracious and helpful with new editors who are struggling with "obvious truth" & Wikipedia policies.--I'clast11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
taking advantage of
I've put in a restoration. Ilena, you might consider slowing your edits down a little, spend some time on the Wiki policy links they keep spitting out, so more experienced adversaries can't "set you up" for rules violations (and blocks), a favorite being the 3RR (reverts rule). It may seem twisty, as to to the difference between lots of edits and a reversion but very important in the middle of a catfight when several gang up on you. Besides, slower but persistent with a hard reference (extra time used) is probably more aggravating to any hotter heads...--I'clast11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not explaining myself better. I would like to add that truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia; verifiability is the primary requirement. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that NCAHF not being registered in MA is verifiable; all we can be sure is that they're not registered as a MA corporation; that database doesn't seem to have foreign corporations registered to do business in MA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you I'clast.
It is definitely verifiable that NCAHF is NOT registered in Massachusetts. The Secretary of State's office has reiterated that all legal corporate entities are listed in their database. Any legal corporation in any state can prove their legality in a heartbeat.
Ilena15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena Rosenthal
There are a number of large corporations doing business in Massachusetts which I cannot find in the directory. This may be a defect in my search proceedures, but it does indicate the possiblility that NCAHF may be registered in another state. Also, non-profits do not necessarily have to register as a foreign corporation in all states in which they solicit donations, even states they are physically located in, but only in those states to which they direct donation requests. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003. [4]
Please stop accusing me of being Stephen Barrett. I consider this a personal attack on myself, especially when you make personal attacks against him at the same time.
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:You are not being attacked
I've copied the discussion below from my talk page, after moving your comments from my user page, in order to make for an easier discussion.[6] --Ronz19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You are not being attacked. Stop censoring my posts. You are hiding behind an alias and are attempting to expunge evidence about the NCAHF and other Barrett operations that you do not want the public to see. Your POV and bias is overwhelming and against the rules of Wikipedia. [7]Ilena18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena
Sorry about removing the link. You're still promoting your webpage in violation of WP:SIG, so I've gotten used to cleaning up after you. That one should have stayed.
As for the rest of your comments, I'm not hiding behind anything, and I find your accusations uncivil, even offensive when repeated over and over as you do. I have removed no evidence, and I don't appreciate that accusation either. I suggest you read WP:POVPUSH before making any accusations about it. If I'm promoting a POV stop with the accusations and present some actual evidence.
Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Wikipedia. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!?15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Please also note that external links should not be included with your signature. --Ronz 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)