User talk:Cleo123
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looking good :)
Welcome!
Hello, Cleo123, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! KittenKlub 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hey?
I know you're gone and probably don't want messages, but I just thought I'd say hey. I did not always agree with your methods, but I think it's horrid that your page got vandalized and I think you have been treated unkindly. I hope you have better luck with your other endeavors.--T. Anthony 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
 Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 |
|
Congratulations to our 225 new members |
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.
|
|
Complete To Do List
Assessment Progress
|
|
|
|
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
[edit] Meg Ryan article new additions; your opinion would be appreciated
Hello Cleo123, Hope you are doing well! Please review the current condition of the "Meg Ryan" article. Some editor added to it again (to the "main body" of the article - not just the "discussion" section) the Parkinson stuff. It is still my opinion that it is unnecessary and not needed there. The episode that was actually a minor one in the 25+ year career of still active actress, the meaning of which was just greatly exagerrated by a contemporary tabloids, is not something that deserves such a "special attention" in a short informative Encyclopedic article. The mission of such article is just to cover and describe some really important and most principal aspects of the career of the person, no to re-tell tabloids and the tabloid "polls" etc., i believe... So it was my first intention just to remove the stuff... but i wanted to know your opinion at first, for to act on the base of some "established agreement between the editors" (if you agree of course). Kind regards - Old Donkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Donkey (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dawn Wells
Yor addition to the Wells article is excessively POV. I don't mind including material that indicates Wells lawyers disagree with the rulering, 'but the article is not a Forums For Rebuttal.' If you rewite it, I will not object to it. But otherwise, I will rewrite it. In any case, I've added a POV tag, because it is POV.
Also, as to your comments in the discussion, hostility has nothing to do with it. This is not an article about Wells' career, it's a biography of an individual and therefor includes information about more than Wells career. Proxy User (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the article's purpose. This is NOT the biography of a private individual - Wikipedia is not intended to include such biographies. Wells' biography is included on this forum because she is NOTABLE as an actress. The article's primary focus should pertain to her notability, not minor incidents in her private life - such as traffic stops. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person.
-
-
- As I said, it is improper to use the article as a forum for rebuttal. Why not rewrite it so it's not so POV? Proxy User (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I believe I have rewritten it so that it is less POV. I have added the other side of the story - which you don't seem to like. Thus far, I have cited WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. I'm not sure where this "rebuttal" concept of yours is stemming from. Can you please direct me to a Wikipedia policy that supports your argument? Cleo123 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "The Other Side" implies POV. Rewite it or I will. And don't remove the POV tag. Proxy User (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments on my talk page show how POV you are. I *did not* contribute "FALSE and LIBELOUS" material, I added verifiable information from legitimate national news sources. If I where *you*, I would curb your comments about "FALSE and LIBELOUS" yadda yadda, if you continue in this vain, you'll only hurt your position. PLEASE COOL DOWN.
- "The Other Side" implies POV. Rewite it or I will. And don't remove the POV tag. Proxy User (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, She ***WAS*** sentenced to jail time. It was suspended, but none-the-less she was sentenced to jail time. POINT OF FACT. Please move on, you will lose if you continue to contradict the known facts.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Honestly, do you understand how silly it sounds for you to claim this idea of FIRST three hitchhikers might have left the drugs and THEN maybe it was some guy she loaned the car to? Do you really want the article to explore these "facts"? All I've done is include *FACTS* from police reports. But hey, if you want to go into this absurd story, maybe we should.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please do NOT move the POV tag again, the content I added is VERIFIED BY LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND NEWS REPORTS and not POV. If you do that again, I'll make a complaint with an Administrator against you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest in this? Are you a personal associate of Dawn Wells? I'm starting to wonder if you've altered the facts in other articles as well, perhaps I'll have a look. Proxy User (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
It's inappropriate to place a POV tag where you did in the Marijuana Incident section, as that content is directly based on official police reports and court documents and contains no POV material. I removed it, and will continue to do so. If you continue to VANDALIZE the Dawn Wells article, I'll have to bring your questionable edits to the attention of an administrator. If you don't like the way the Wells article is shaping up, you could always seek MEDIATION. Proxy User (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Section headers are placed above sections, not individual paragraphs you "don't like". Your premature reference to "mediation" further demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's processes. I see your edits, which are clearly designed to paint a living person in a negative light and misrepresent facts as POV. It is my right as an editor to tag the entire section. Don't like it? Report it. I suggest you calm down and take some time to review WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL and WP:CIVIL. I see that you have previously been blocked for similar disruptive behavior. I would suggest that you back off and cool down. You seem to be hell bent on picking a fight with me for reasons unknown. Cleo123 (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Did you know that there are POV tags for SECTIONS? Obviously you didn't. You do now. The Marijuana Section is relevant, and unbiased, STATING ONLY THE FACTS AS REPORTED. The section in dispute is the NPOV that you added. I suggest YOU "calm down" and not add POV content to articles. I've ONLY added news references and actual court document references. Thes are what is called "factual". Proxy User (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dawn Wells. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] Bruce Long & Taylorology
I respond here to some comments made in Talk:William Desmond Taylor.
Bruce Long is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about him.
True, but I hope that some day I may possibly be found worthy.
The man who allegedly "witnessed" Palmer's alleged confession waited some 30 years to drop his "bombshell" revelation. Did he bring the information to the police? Heck - no!
I would not fault someone for not going to the police under such circumstances. The police could care less about an alleged deathbed confession of an old inactive case, unless the confession implicated someone still alive, and provided a trail to more solid evidence.
...He contacted Bruce Long - right around the time Long was trying to publish a compilation of original documents. How fortuitous for Mr. Long!
I assume this is a reference to Taylorology (since my book was published years earlier). The electronic issues of Taylorology were published in electronic form only, free, and I made no profit from them. It was Taylorology which led the "witness" to contact me, and Taylorology was nearing the end of its run. I am very aware that the alleged confession lends itself to easy skepticism, but I felt that it still warranted inclusion in Taylorology.
If this information were at all "credible" or "widely held" it would have been picked up by the mainstream media.
Mainstream media has minimal interest in the Taylor case.
I find it fascinating that no book has been published espousing Long's theory.
It's not my theory. The only book on the Taylor case which has appeared since the Gibson-theory appeared was Higham's "Murder in Hollywood", and since that theory conflicts with Higham's solution, it is natural that he would ignore it.
Long strikes me as a shameless self promoter and I am deeply concerned by the number of references to his website I find inserted all over Wikipedia.
Most of those references are interviews with silent stars (on the page of the star) or articles written by authors (on the page of the author). I thought those references, containing the actual words of the person, were very relevant and useful.
I did add a page for Taylorology; I thought the number of references and citations elsewhere warranted it. But since it has recently been tagged, the page might soon be deleted. Some of the "shameless" self-promotion was my response to the tagging, an effort to show that its web content was notable.
..his newsletter..
I consider Taylorology to be more of a fanzine than a newsletter.
He was only a "staff member". Intersting how he continually seems to reference employment at a University. An attempt to establish some sort of scholarly credibility? Perhaps?
I did reference it on the Taylorology page, but I don't recall referencing it elsewhere on Wikipedia, except perhaps to correct where someone else had mistakenly called me a professor. I don't consider myself a "writer" or "author". Perhaps a "conglomerator?" I do feel my former staff position at ASU is relevant, because the research facilities of the university were used so extensively in locating the source material for Taylorology and my 1991 book on Taylor. --Pikabruce (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message, Bruce. I apologize if my response to GwenGale offended you in any way. I had not realized that the Taylorology article had been "self" authored. Although my remarks may seem harsh, I want you to know that I admire all of the hard work you've put into Taylorology. It is a very valuable resource whereby researchers can access original source material. Whenever possible, it is preferable to use primary source material on Wikipedia. Had you cited the original newspaper articles and merely provided a link to Taylorology, where readers could access that material; I wouldn't have an issue. Unfortunately, your links seem focused on "promoting" your website as if it is the original source. Wikipedia has standards and guidelines regarding that sort of thing. Ask yourself, have you ever seen an article in Wikipedia where an entire section was added mid-article promoting the Encyclopedia Britanica or somebody's website as a source of information on the the sbject matter? The Taylorology section of William Desmond Taylor's biography just isn't appropriate within the broader context of Wikipedia.
- Honestly, I think your publication of the alleged confession is unethical. I do not see the witness as at all credible. The fact that he waited until every possible corroborating witness was dead to make his scandalous accusations is more than a bit telling. Desmond's murder may be a cold case, but it is still a very famous case. I would not be at all surprised to find that the police have investigated the allegations and found them to be without merit. Don't you see what you have done to this poor dead woman's reputation??? What if you are wrong, Bruce? What if you have unwittingly given a platform to a liar? Thanks, in large part to you, this poor woman's acting work has been entirely overshadowed by titilating speculation that she might be a murderer. Irrelevant munutia about petty criminal charges, which were dropped, dominate biographies of her. Oh, yes - she was a possible prostitute, a possible extortionist, and a possible murderer - NO, BRUCE - she was AN ACTRESS, and shame on you for taking that which she should most be remembered for away from her. Shame on your "witness" whose evil heart could sully the reputation of his own mother's friend, for a bit of attention and a quick buck.
- You yourself say that your witnesses account of the confession "lends itself to skepticism". Well, now we have GwenGale, irresponsibly inserting this very shaky information into the lead paragraph of Desmond's biography so that it will be re-published all over the Internet. You might want to think about doing the right thing here before it's too late. Ms. Gibson may be dead but I will NOT allow you to victimize her any further. Cleo123 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- "The Taylorology section of William Desmond Taylor's biography just isn't appropriate within the broader context of Wikipedia." I did not add the Taylorology section of William Desmond Taylor's biography. It was solely the presence of that section which made me think that perhaps Taylorology should have its own entry. If your deletion of the Taylorology section stands, then I agree that Taylorology does not warrant its own Wikipedia page.
-
- We obviously have divergent points of view regarding the alleged confession; I do regard the witness as reasonably credible (if I did not, I would not allow that 10% probability; I allow Sands 20% probability). I assume that the reason the witness waited so long was primarily because he knew he would be subject to skeptical attacks such as yours. Any writing about the Taylor case could lead to charges of victimization of the memories of the people mentioned. And what about Higham's recent book on the case, which presents Minter (who certainly does have living relatives) as the killer, even though the investigators at the time said she was not a suspect. In reality, the alleged confession has produced renewed interest in the films of a minor, long-forgotten silent film actress, bringing new attention to her work as an actress. And if the credibility of the witness is accepted then one must ask: To whom was the confession made? Perhaps the confession was made to the world; and if so, then the confession should be presented to the world. I reject your clear-cut moralistic reasoning (attributing an "evil heart" to the witness). --Pikabruce (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A friendly note
I have tried to adapt the wording of the WDT article (and related articles) according to the concerns raised by you and another editor as to NPoV and the use of the word credibility (which I have removed altogether as it related to Gibson's reported confession, anywhere I could find it).
As to Taylorology, the newsletter was published by subscription through the mails for several years and subsequently mirrored on many web sites. It has become a widely noted source on the early Hollywood film colony and does conform as a reliable source under WP:RS. If you can find any reliable sources in which writers dispute anything having to do with Gibson's reported confession, I again ask you to provide them on the article's talk page and we can include them in the article.
This said, from the outset I have found your editing style often rather combative, sarcastic and mocking. I think this was an unhelpful distraction and I can say it caused me to hesitate about taking you seriously. Moreover, your characterization (above) of my edits as irresponsible was neither helpful, accurate nor acceptable. Rather than referring you to the sundry Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and reliability of sources and how these are applied to articles, along with the need for civility and assumption of good faith, I humbly but strongly ask that you seek these policy pages out for yourself, read them and do what you can to limit your edits to comments on sources and content, rather than sweeping, negative generalizations as to the motiviations of editors and sources or emotional appeals about the reputations of deceased figures in biographical articles. Rather, let the sources speak and please keep in mind that WP:BLP does not apply to William Desmond Taylor or Margaret Gibson. If you have lingering legal worries, please have a look at WP:OFFICE.
Lastly, I'm more than happy to work with you on getting more verifiable sources of any PoV or take into these articles. Thanks... and cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale, you may want to take a hard look back at your inappropriate and less than civil responses to my contributions to this article. If you find me "combative" - you might want to take a look at what I am responding to. It's clear that you are pushing a point of view on this and several other articles. I will remind you that you do not "own" these articles, per WP:OWN. You have NO RIGHT to demand that anyone who wants to edit "your" articles has to get your approval on the article's talk page for any changes they'd like to make. You also have no right to removed properly sourced material simply because you "don't like it". I see your editorial conduct to be in blatant violation of Wikipedia's policies. It is my intention to get more members of the comunity involved with this matter. Perhaps some fresh objective eyes can assist in resolving this dispute. Cheers! Cleo123 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are mistaken if you think I have demanded anyone get my approval to edit any article. Rather, I suggest you review WP:Verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's see - after my FIRST edit to the article, you posted this. Guess I must have misunderstood something. Or perhaps I misunderstood this little bullying tactic. Or this? Or this? or the most recent demand? Clearly, there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that you are attempting to exercise some sort of ownership over the article - insisting that other editors get your approval before contributing. That is entirely improper. Cleo123 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are mistaken if you think I have demanded anyone get my approval to edit any article. Rather, I suggest you review WP:Verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks and next steps
Dear Cleo,
Thank you so much for your note on my page. Yes, it surely feels like harassment but in the end it seems the administrators and community always seem to recognize it sooner or later and shut it down. You might be interested in this and this. You'll see that Shashwat's been harassing me for a long time but I figure it reflects more on him than on me.
Yes, I would greatly appreciate help watching him. I think he's effectively shut down now.
If he attempts to re-post again (no doubt under a different identity) then it would be great to get the biography group involved as there is a lot of OR going on based on primary sources and clear libel and defamation as ruled by two courts already. Thank you again for your note.
Best, Renee Renee (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libelous Newspaper Article posted
Dear Cleo,
Well, it seems that Cult Free World has really stepped over the boundary and now published an entire newspaper article that two courts in India found libelous and defamatory here. So, yes, I accept your offer for assistance and it looks like we should get the Biography project involved as this is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy to have posted this.
What steps should be taken? Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your note and Yikes! You must not have noticed but I posted something on the BLP board too here. It's good to hear an outside third opinion though so I know I'm not going crazy.
I'd be curious as to what other people on the Biography project think of such a source, as outside third opinions as well. If you were so inclined it'd be nice to get your outside opinion on the rest of the article too, found here. The user has asked for feedback here. For background, the archives contain the history of discussions on various issues. Thanks, Renee (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I saw your posting. Unfortunately, Cult free world seems to dilute all your complaints with his argumentative postings. I think his commentary and the ensuing "arguments" turn people off and they don't want to get involved. I think this may be why you aren't getting the help you need. I suspect his tactic is by design. Let's keep our notices separate. I think you may get a better result that way. I dropped a note to an admin I really respect where BLP matters are concerned. Let's wait for his input.
- I'll take a look at his RFC tomorrow. Honestly, I think an RFC on the editor would be more appropriate at this juncture! LOL! Cleo123 (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFC posted
Hi Cleo, Per your note above, you had wanted to take a look at Cult's RFC. Here it is. Maybe some of your biography project friends might give their input on the validity of various sources. Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your comments at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Appointed Time"
Hello, Cleo123:
Thanks for your comments at the referenced discussion page.
It did not cross my mind that posting a truthful and non-fraudulent article would cause such furor and hatred.
My experience here has confirmed every negative stereotype about Wikipedia, and every negative stereotype about people who prefer to live in a virtual world rather than the real one. I appreciate your comments and wish you the best. Thanks again and have a good day. Maple50 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Instead of reverting
....let it be. I obviously do not wish to talk to you. Feel free to revert. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. You removed my message from your page [1] because you don't want others to see the obvious mistake you made in rushing to judgment. It's too bad that you aren't big enough to admit your error and apologize. You might want to have a look at WP:CIVIL. Cleo123 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as how its in the history, it makes no difference. I removed it because its an annoyance to point something like this out, and it not an error. The edits made by the account were not strong vandalism in my opinion (after checking the history). I assumed good faith while reverting because its rather weak vandalism, and there is still a chance they can contribute in a more positive manner down the road. This is going into personal reasons on assuming good faith, not a common norm. I never became uncivil with you, and you are not AGF at all. If I don't want you on my talk page, I can remove your comments. Happy editing. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent comments
For what its worth, you seem to have done little if any investigation of my RfA. If you had looked at it, and it can easily be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Warlordjohncarter, you will note that the Bus stop incident was mentioned both my me and at least one of those who voted support, and that, in fact, my username was changed after the RfA had begun, so it could hardly qualify as "burying my record and hiding it from community view", as you said. In fact, such clearly unsubstantiated allegations might themselves be taken as being a form of personal attack. I would strongly encourage you in the future to at least learn something about the matters in question before making such clearly inaccurate comments. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fact: you removed an entire thread from the talk page discussion here, shortly there after you archived the discussion against consensus. Fact: when questioned, you acknowledged and attempted to justify your vandalism of the discussion record here. When an administrator informed you that the removal was improper, you stated - falsely - that another unnamed administrator condoned your actions. It would appear that you then quickly archived that page. I well understand why you chose to ditch the name WARLORD JOHN CARTER in your bid for adminship, however, as the two accounts were linked that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The contribution histories are linked - this is about trying to bury information by deleting an entire thread from an article discussion page.
- As you are well aware, I have left Wikipedia, more than once now, due to ongoing harassment from you, against myself and other Jewish editors. You have repeatedly been asked by myself and other editors to leave me alone. [2]. The fact that you have the apparent audacity to leave, yet another, very misleading and IMO inappropriate message on my talk page demonstrates the fact that you are entirely unfit to be an administrator. I have substantiated my claims against you, and you should know full well that what I have publicly cited is only the tip of the iceberg. In the best interests of the project, I would strongly suggest that you resign. Your RFA may have slipped through the cracks unnoticed due to your very conveniently timed name change, but as you are well aware - there are a great many editors who have serious issues with Warlord John Carter. Indeed, many editors who were not even involved with those articles voiced concerns about your bullying tactics as seen here, here, and here Cleo123 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
