User talk:Cherylktardif/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cheryl

I would love to help you get the article into shape, I am perfectly willing to help in any way I can. If the article as it now stands does get deleted, I have saved it here in order to further work on it. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I am still not used to this type of messaging and I might be doing this wrong, but thank you. They are also considering deleting my Whale Song (novel) page. SIGH!(````)

Okay Whale song is now also here for you to continue working on, after the deletion. By the way, make sure you're hitting the shift key along with the tilde mark ;). ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Who exactly am I talking to? It isn't showing up on the discussion page. And thank you for saving these pages. To be honest, I've checked out some of my other edits and found things have been moved. I'm feeling just a tad bit hounded. I have now edited my Cheryl Kaye Tardif page and my Whale Song page. I've compared them to Stephen King's page and to Whale Rider. As far as I can see, there should be nothing wrong with them now. (Cherylktardif 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
Ok, I see your name now...forget that comment. Eco, you happen to be one of my peeves, sorry to say. It was you who told me to delete my unpublished works section, yet Stephen King has an exteremly long list of exactly that. See why I'm feeling picked on? :)(Cherylktardif 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
I'm really not picking (honest)
I am the one who has moved things around as to your bio page trying everything I knew to make it less of a copyvio of your website. I've reworded statements that I could, I didn't do an outstanding job on it because I know nothing about you but was trying to keep the page from being deleted outright as a copyviolation. The problem has been that up until now it was not known if the person writing the article was you (the author) or an overeager fan. Since you couldn't be reached it had to be assumed that it was a fan, and there are limitations to what fans can write. Sourcing is wikipedias most put forth gospel, one cannot just put statements into an article without sources to back them up, Many fans do this. I am the one that has rearranged some edits into a more chronological order at some listings. I like order (shrug). and yes, I have voted for the deletion of both of these articles as they currently stood at the time of nomination. They were not in a very encyclopedic format, nor were they well written. They both read more like adverts for you the author than entries on an author and books written by that author.
Look, the bio page is about you, surely we can come up with something that describes you without having to copy a website verbatum. Like I said, I am really willing to work with you on this. Sorry to be a peeve. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If I wasn't willing to work with you I wouldn't have bothered to save the pages into your userspace. I am sure that between the three of us we could really make the articles nice. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you want to help. Three? Who else? Also, I have compared my page with many other authors' pages and I believe it is good the way it now is. In fact, the original format was copied from another author's page when I first started...I don't remember which author. It probably was King's, as he had the unpublished list that I included as well. Also, there are many blatant advertising statements on other author's pages, yet their's is not being considered for deletion. Is there a word minimum on a bio page, because if not, I think I'll keep the pages basic until I have time (I'm a fulltime writer and by the way have worked for international companies as a copy writer) to write a new bio. Hence, why the bio was my 'standard' bio.(Cherylktardif 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
Upon re-reading my bio page and comparing to my website bio, I realized that I did indeed already change some of it. It is not verbatim. I have again re-edited it, removed anything I feel may be misconstrued as advertising, and have kept it purely factual. Please review when you have time. I appreicate the help. Thank you.(Cherylktardif 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
I believe Victoriagirl would also be willing to help. Honestly you are not being picked on, every now and then sweeps are made through wikipedia, especially on new articles and your's happened to be one of the ones that was seen. Let me assure you King did not write his own article. I am sure King's bio page has some problems, I havn't gotten there yet ;). As to King's unpublished works they can all be found listed as such somewhere on the net and in magazines. They are listed because they are sourced or references to them are easily found via a search engine. Anybody could write up an article and just start typing lists of "unpublished works" to make themselves look better (not that I believe you did) but do you see the point I'm trying to make? That little difference is critical in a good article. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass on Victoriagirl's help. She is new as well, and I have no reason to respect her opinion. I'll accept your help, but you are going to have to compromise as well. There needs to be give and take here. I agree that King's unpublished work can be found online, although not that easily. I've searched. A book comes up that lists his 'unpublished work'. I could write a book like that. The fact is, if one author can list unpublished works, then others can. Or none can. That keeps things neutral and unbiased. I have listed my 2 unpublished work because they have been well advertised in my other books as upcoming. I have not listed every short story I've ever written, as some authors have. I have 3 upcoming releases that are currently unpublished, and hundreds of stories, but you won't find them listed. This is one concession that should be made. I have also re-written my bio, and it is not verbatim.(Cherylktardif 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

I see no problem with them being listed, as they are sourced in your other books. And please, don't think I am the wiki-police, I am a user just like Victoriagirl, you can tell me to go take a flying leap at any time, I merely want to see wikipedia succeed at what it is. I've not been a registered user for much longer than Victoriagirl, although I have been around unregistered for a couple of years. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thank you again. Like I said before, I have no idea how some of this works....like the mediating. So now tell me...how do I get my page unlisted for deletion??? How do I show Wiki that I've done everything to make my pages politically correct? (Cherylktardif 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
It may just have to run its course, but not to fear, I've just copied the taext and all changes you have made to here so if it does get deleted for the old content, the new content can be moved straight over and nothing will be lost. I'm asking around about the "article for deletion" AFD thing. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

Once an Army Brat always an Army Brat !!!! That's why I changed it... LOL ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that. Now drop down and give me 50! lol (Cherylktardif 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Whale song

One more thing, on Whale Song (novel) instead of "designed by an award-winning graphic artist", how about placing the artist's name? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked back and saw this...I have contacted Kunati to confirm the name of the artist. Once I have it, I will include it on the Whale Song page. I believe it was Kam Wai Yu, a graphic designer and author, but am not 100% sure.

Check the article, did I get the info in the box correct? And do you have (or need) permission to post the novel cover? I'm not sure how that works, if not I can upload a blank pic to replace what I erroneously uploaded.←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Whale Song photo box, it should read: expanded, revised special edition (instead of 1st edition) and the publishing date should read 2007 (with that book cover, which is the new one). Otherwise, we should use the old cover and all the old info. I have permission to use either cover in any way that promotes the book and on any advertising, signage etc. The original is my cover; I own the rights. The one you put up is Kunati's cover; they give us free usage/rights.(Cherylktardif 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

So, I think it looks real good now, and Victoriagirl is sincere. She has changed her opinion about Whale Song since your major rewrite. And changed her vote. I did find out that the AFD's do have to run their course, but I have been making backups every hour or so of the pages so that nothing is lost, just in case. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you once again. I've truly appreciated your help. If this article is deleted, I would appreciate if you would consider writing the bio for me. To be honest, it was my first experience with Wikipedia, after someone else turned me onto the site (they wrote their own bio). I have added more to the Cheryl Kaye Tardif, including a section titled Other Notable Accomplishments, which should help establish that I am not some fly-by-night writer, but a professional. All the best! (Cherylktardif 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
If it comes to that I would be happy to try and tackle the job :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trafford

Hey, Eco, would you please do me a favor when you have time and check out another page I've edited. Someone had started a stub on Trafford Publishing and since I know about them firsthand and have researched them thoroughly, I've expanded the info. Can you please check it over. And yes, I referenced myself as an author, but to show that POD publishing can lead to success. I listed another successful Trafford author as well and hope others will research and add more. I used the NPOV by pointing out pros and cons of self-publishing and Trafford's services. Thanks, (Cherylktardif 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

I'll take a look at it after I've had some sleep, it's 115am here and time for bed :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More guidelines I've found

Read this, this, this. Just so that you will have the information under your belt. Going on this logic, you should not write anymore of your novels' articles, you should not insert their mention into any articles, nor (by expanding upon the logic of wikipedia, should you write any articles about BookAdz.com, AlbertaAuthors.com, A.F.T.E.R. Canada, or Authors' Row due to the major possibility of them being automatically deleted. Hopefully this helps you understand the reasoning behind some of wikipedia's quirks :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian film producer

Cheryl, can you point me to the source for this information? That way I can add it and get rid of the citation/source needed tag. And it helps define the notability of the novel. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As anyone in the movie industry will know, it is standard to sign a non-disclosure statement with a film company, which I have done. They don't want other companies to know what they are working on. I will however request that they allow me to release that information, as they did once for a radio interview. It has been widely publicized in Edmonton that Whale Song is being considered and there is mention at: http://www.kunati.com/pressroom_Whale_Song.html (although the screenplay has been finished and in the producers hands for about 3 weeks now). http://www.trafford.com/05-1130 also has a reference to the film producer. I will say this much: they are a respected Canadian film company with many movies and TV series to their credits.(Cherylktardif 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC))
I've replaced the citation tag with 2 links. (Cherylktardif 15:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Please don't edit articles that pertain to yourself!

I don't know how to put this without making you feel got at, so I shall just plunge in and hope for the best.

I've just read this page plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif, User_talk:Ecophreek, User_talk:Lgh#Cheryl Kaye Tardif, User_talk:Victoriagirl#Cheryl Kaye Tardif and User_talk:Victoriagirl#tardif dyskinesia?. This seems like a textbook example of why Wikipedia editors should not edit articles which pertain to themselves. Ecophreek gave some useful links above: let me pick out a few highlights.

  • You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. WP:AUTO
  • [Autobiographies] are often biased, usually positively. People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. WP:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies
  • Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic. WP:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself

[edit] The "official" article

Actually, there isn't one. It's one of the strange features of WP that articles remain live and continue to be changed, for good or for ill. I could list both good and bad results of this, but since it's the Way Things Are (at least presently), anyone contributing to WP has to get used to the idea that there isn't a "definitive" version which they can maintain. The AfD process decided to keep the title "Cheryl Kaye Tardif" if a decent article could be made of it: this doesn't constitute a particular version being the "approved" one.

[edit] Ownership

Some of what you wrote above certainly gave the impression that you felt ownership for articles pertaining to you. ("I have now edited my Cheryl Kaye Tardif page and my Whale Song page," "I think I'll keep the pages basic", " I'll accept your help, but you are going to have to compromise as well.")

You don't get to say yea or nay to any editor working on any page. You can put your case and try to convince others what should be in an article, but its not yours and you have no special say over it. Actually, in this case you're lucky to have found an editor such as Ecophreek, who is willing to incorporate information which you post here on your talk page, or on the talk page of Cheryl Kaye Tardif. I think these can be fruitful relationships, as the subject of an article will probably keep closer watch on their clippings than the other editor.

So I was glad to read that you are not claiming any ownership of these articles. It would be great if you could rephrase the statement on your user page to better reflect this (as it stands it's open to misinterpretation).

[edit] Bruised egos

One problem of editing articles about oneself is that it is easy to take changes to an article personally, which can lead to undue conflict with other editors. You have been sarcastic and mildly aggressive to User:Victoriagirl, including accusing her of lack of objectivity ("you have not been perhaps as objective towards me or my articles as you should be" (User talk:Victoriagirl)), when as far as I can see she has been nothing but neutral and helpful.

You have also got into actual conflict with User:Lgh. Lgh's comments were certainly uncivil when talking about you as an editor (bad boy!). But you say "That was not the place to air your opinionated viewpoint of me as a writer, or to predict my "destined" failure." (User talk:Lgh). Although in this instance the criticism did not contribute towards the article, in general it's precisely appropriate to discuss publically on WP issues which affect notability, and to include literary criticism of a work (which may not be constructive criticism!) or properly referenced criticism of a person (ditto!). This may mean you read things that you don't like, and WP:CIVIL does not cover the content of articles.

On a related tack, from WP:CIVIL (a page to which you have refered): shortly above the suggestion "Remove offensive comments on talk pages" comes "Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict." You may like to ponder on these. Certainly by my standards you have overreacted to Lgh (you should see what I've put up with!), particularly in posting warnings to Victoriagirl. But everyone judges these things for themselves.

Sadly, feeling "got at" when people list a page about you for deletion or criticize your writing is one of the penalties of WP having an article about you. At least here you can correct inaccuracies like your birthday, etc!

[edit] Promotion

WP is an encyclopedia, not an advertising board. If an editor is participating here principally for the latter (I'm not saying you are - I saw your contributions at Petrified Forest of Lesvos), they will continually find themselves in conflict with the project's aim and other editors. Leading to aggression, incivility, Wikilawyering and, well, The Dark Side.

[edit] Keep on Wiki-ing

So I'm sorry to say all that: even more so if I'm now preaching to the converted. I think between you and Ecophreek you've done a jolly good job of bringing Cheryl Kaye Tardif and Whale Song (novel) into line. I hope you enjoy being here, and I look forward to your great contributions to the encyclopedia. All best wishes, JackyR | Talk 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jacky, thank you for your information and suggestions. Hopefully I address all of your main points. Please note: I do this so as not to be rude since you have taken the time to write so much. However, you may think I am now engaging in a conflict. I'm not. I didn't find your comments to be offensive, but I wanted to answer you. In the spirit of good faith and because you have come into this a bit late, I will assume that you are trying to be helpful. Thank you. I have in the past left some things alone, especially if they will only create more conflict. I've argued on the inaccurate things or the personal attacks. I'm not sure if it was you who wrote all the above as it seemed like separate posts at first, but rest assured, this article and Whale Song has already been dealt with and re-written to Wiki's acceptable standards. You've come in on the tail end of things. I have no problem with any other editors contributing to the article as it is not mine, but I will correct anything that is incorrect or misleading in any way, since I know the topic Cheryl Kaye Tardif and Whale Song (novel) very well. :)

Ecophreek's tips were given AFTER I had posted the two articles. Hindsight is foresight, they say. Oh well, live and learn. I have taken most of his suggestions and tips into consideration and have learned a lot from him...or her:) It's important that all articles here are accurate. He/she's been great! Along with a few others.

As for my conversations with Victoriagirl, I've now read the policies on public attacks and a few other like pages, and it says it is appropriate to comment on the 'behaviour' of the editor as long as one is not personally attacking the editor (which, as you noticed, is what Lgh has done.) Basically, it's saying "Your BEHAVIOR is unacceptable." My comment to VG about her POSSIBLE ("perhaps") lack of objectivity is simply a comment on her bahavior based on what she had written in the past. It was not a personal attack nor aggressive. Good faith would also suggest we be careful of how we read other's posts. I have admitted when I have misunderstood something. I admit, I find it hard to be patient with VG, but her persistence in arguing about so many petty things would be trying for most people. (Note: I did not just call her 'petty'; I said some of the issues are petty.) And for anyone who thinks this is personal, it is just an observation based on my experiences with her. I have no hard feelings toward her. She likes to write, she likes to be right. Who doesn't? But sometimes, she may just be wrong. She has recently finally admitted one of her errors. And I am not saying that I have not made a few mistakes. I have aplogized for writing things in such a way that she misconstrued my meaning. It is easy to do that in email or these posts.

I addressed Lgh today about her very personal and derogatory attacks when I noticed her entries. Her comments had nothing to do with being uncivil to me as an editor as you suggested--they were about me as a writer/author and a human being. Her comments had absolutely nothing to do with editing the article, or criticizing work by me, since she has never read any of my work. It was personal. I do not feel in the least that it was over-reacting. My warning was a Wiki warning, and a request for her to follow policy--just as some have asked me to follow policy. If I am expected to follow it, then so are others. Right? And yes, (as per Wiki policy, after reading the pages on personal attacks and a few others) I isssued the warning that Wiki recommends. I could have, by Wiki's accepted policy, simply deleted it myself as any editor can delete a personal attack. But I felt that it would be less confrontational to do it by the book. I don't believe that I am responsible for "getting into a conflict" with LGH. She wrote some rude things about me; I responded with a request to delete as it was a personal attack and had nothing to do with the article itself. If she has responded and escalated a conflict, I don't know...I haven't checked back.

I am sorry you had to "put up with" worse here on Wiki. I really am. After reading many personal attack complaints by other editors, I have come to realize a few things about how Wiki operates. It's too bad really that some people are harassed so badly. Oh and I actually didn't feel "got at" because they listed my page for deletion--it was the comments of one or two people that made me defend those pages. People were asking questions; I answered.

Please note: I don't OWN any article on Wiki. I've already explained the problem with perception of ownership. Others perceived incorrectly that I thought I owned them. I don't believe I OWN anything here. I never have said I did. Good faith really comes into play here. When I said "my", I meant it because I was the subject of the article and it was MY book. This was out in the open from day one...because I did not know it was such a great offense. I know now!:) I hope that is clear now. I won't be addressing this again. And I can't be bothered with going back and editing past conversations. Sorry, but I don't have the time and it won't change any of the conversations.

Thank you very much for recognizing that I have tried hard to help bring this article Cheryl Kaye Tardif to an acceptable standard, with Ecophreek's kind help. It was my first article and being new I am still learning all the ropes of Wiki. Thank you for being so positive, helpful and welcoming. Of course, I won't be starting a new article on me any time in the future! :) And I've had a few offers by other editors who want to write about my work...so hey, I'll stick to editing and contribute that way when I have time. All the best! I hope I've addressed your main concerns. (Cherylktardif 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC))


[edit] dear me

Hi Cheryl, and welcome to the price of fame. If you stick your neck out you will develop two things: a fan base who love you and some who feel that maybe you are not so worthy of adulation. I apologize for the tone of my comments about your self-written article which should never have been included in Wikipedia and has considerably cheapened my opinion if it in the process. Note I have made no personal attack on you but simply on your article and the act of its inclusion. Note also that my comments are in a talk page and not in an article, and therefore do not come under the 'personal attack' law of Wikipedia - basically, as far as talk pages goes, I can write what I like to anyone at any time on any subject. If it engenders debate - hooray. I will not withdraw a word of it. You may erase anything you wish, though I hope you would not be such a bully as to do this. I note your novels talk about tolerance: perhaps you can apply this principle to the open forum that is Wikipedia. My comments are nothing personal; I would make similar comments to any article that disappointed me either in content or inclusion. As I said, I apologise for their tone, I was and continue to be disappointed in the article's inclusion. I am sure you are a fine writer and will one day have something published in the usual manner - that is, through a bona fide publisher - at which time maybe an article on you, written by someone else, might be appropriate. Lgh 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome to the "price of fame". According to Wiki's policy WP:NPA your comments about me on Victoriagirl's talk page violated the first 2 examples in above ploicy. And to quote: "Do not make personal attacks ANYWHERE in Wikipedia. Comment on CONTENT, not on the contributor." You are not supposed to use talk pages or user talk pages for personal attacks either. Being disappointed in the article's inclusion is a valid comment. The other comments were purely personal and aimed at me as the contributor (and as an author) and not at the actual article. And actually, I've been published by bona fide publishers since I was a teen and I do have a bona fide book publisher...actually two of them. One is a bona fide POD publisher and one is a bona fide new US/Canadian publisher. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? Tolerance, remember?(Cherylktardif 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] No thanks necessary

Hi, I'm always happy to vote keep to a worthy article, and unlike some people I don't truly feel it is taboo to write about yourself, but I can understand why it upsets people. I'm almost finished my novel that I read to and from work everyday, maybe I will try reading one of yours next. --Cloveious 05:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks again! :) If I had known ahead of time about Wiki's suggestion that you don't write about yourself, I would have had someone else do it! lol Jeesh...how can anyone possibly wade through all the guidelines and policies? And I had no idea how ruthless it can be here. Live and learn. I love writing...about anything and anyone. At least the controversy is good for sales...hehe. My online sales jumped the last three weeks and I got an email from a fellow in England about a week ago who wants 5 copies of The River. By the way, if you're male (I apologize for not going to your page), I'd recommend The River. It's been my personal best seller for men. If you're female...try any of them :) Thank you again for your support. If you ever need help here, let me know. Hmmm...crap, I wonder if I've just violated some policy for saying that? (Cherylktardif 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jolly good

Wow, thanks for your amazing long answer to my post above. I wasn't expecting a blow by blow reply, but it was good of you to take the time. Sorry the subheads made my post confusing: I completely agree that it's a very steep learning curve at WP - and I'm still coming across policies I don't know well, when new issues fall across my path.

Another rope to learn (sorry for the overload!). WP:VANITY states:

Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

So getting someone else to write about yourself or your works (your paragraph above (#No thanks necessary), making you an associate of the article's author, is also not OK. And there's a singularly unattractive term - meatpuppet - that gets bandied around when editors suspect such a thing has happened. Just the word is enough to put me off - gives me the shudders! :-) Happy wiki-ing, JackyR | Talk 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. After a couple of editors were upset that I did not address their concerns in a timely manner, I now strive to answer anything important. My apologies to them...I was busy and had completely forgot about Wiki, and when I did come on here, I had a heck of a time figuring out how to communicate with anyone...haha! Life was much easier then :)

Also, it was recommended to me numerous times that someone else should write the article and two editors actually offered or said they'd do it. That's what I meant. That post was in humor, by the way. I did however ask one editor to help me write/edit both articles, to get it up to standards as I am new. And you're right! There are a few terms here that make me wonder if Wes Craven isn't part of the Wiki clan! Hmmm....I think I'll write a book called 'Meat Puppet"! lol(Cherylktardif 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Dispute resolution

I've been looking at a dispute you've been involved in, and I would like to see an end to the dispute so that everyone can get on with something more positive and enjoyable. There are always disputes on wiki and the thing to do is to minimise them a.s.a.p. or they escalate and drag on forever. And that's no fun. Everyone involved is a new user, and it does take time to learn things the wiki way. It's a quirky system, but it seems to get there in the end. The first thing to accept it that there is a certain degree of arbitrariness, and inconsistency may be apparent. It is not necessarily considered valid that because X is accepted over there, then X should be accepted here as well (or not accepted for that matter). Things tend to be a bit localised. Nor is that a 100% rule either. Are you feeling as if you've just dropped down the hole into Wonderland with Alice? Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki.

Then we have the rules. Well, actually there are no rules on wiki. There are three non-negotiable policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY for writing articles. There are other policies and there are guidelines, but primarily there is collective common sense, known as consensus. Wiki is a living evolving entity, so sometimes the written "laws" are out of date to a greater or lesser degree. There is only one real way to find out what's what, and that is by participating and becoming part of the wiki community. Then you not only learn how it's done, you can immediately participate on deciding how it's done. And as for all those rules, it's a good idea to check out WP:LAWYER before you start beating someone over the head with them in great detail.

New users, who act in good faith, are allowed latitude to compensate for the difficulties and mistakes that are bound to ensue. There are various rights and wrongs in this dispute, but not major wrongs. If you want to know how to be uncivil properly, check this out for a good example. Nevertheless, for anyone who wants satisfaction, I will issue a formal warning. It is a generic warning. If it applies to you in whole or part, then take in what it says. If it doesn't, then ignore it, as it will be for someone else.

Please be WP:CIVIL to other users and remember to WP:AGF (assume good faith), even when you don't feel like it, unless you have evidence to the contrary, which a third party will agree with. Remember also WP:NPA (no personal attacks). Criticise the edit, not the editor. When dealing with living subjects for articles and in article talk pages, it is essential to act with caution in line with BLP, particularly in regard to negative statements about that person. If you are an editor and there is an article about you (or you plan to start one), read WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY first, and don't be surprised if other editors are short with you, or if it ends up being proposed for deletion. However, if you see someone editing an article about themselves, you might like to be tactful, rather than throwing the book at them. Editors in such a circumstance can sometimes make valuable accurate edits (as here), and may remove negative material about themselves which is not verified.

The best thing now is to start afresh and draw a line under all this. In fact I have drawn a line, as you can see. Below it you will see a link to an archive for you. If you click on it, it will open the archive. I suggest you cut and paste the line and everything above it into the archive. It is accessible whenever needed, but will no longer be prominently on display. It would be an affirmation of good faith to get it out of the way. What will be left will be anything below the line.

If you need any assistance, leave a message at the bottom of my talk page.

Tyrenius 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)