User talk:Rhode Island Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rhode Island Red, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! --Kf4bdy 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are hereby warned. You are to stop attacking a certain product, which is protected by a company with considerable means. (Unsigned comment by Dr sears)

Hey, RIR, I think you are really needed at Juice Plus, I think you really could help us out. This whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, and it won't hurt if you helped. :) Yanksox ^(talk) 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the talk page? I applied an expert tag since I felt a third party was nominated. Then suddenly, "dr. sears" pops up. If you read the talk you can see the...I'm not sure what to call it. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little help, please

I am the person on the Juice Plus+ article that everyone refers to as an I.P. address. I have made my comments and they have accomplished nothing at all. I am fine with that as this is your world and not mine. But, I would appreciate it if you would remove my I.P. address from the comments. If you have to, go ahead and remove my comments along with the I.P. address. There is too much going on over the Internet today and I don't need my I.P. address hanging out there and my network attacked. Please, I am asking you as nicely as I know how. I do not work for NSA or Juice Plus+. I do take Juice Plus+ and I have seen incredible results, and so has my family, extended family and friends. I think it's totally unfair that the product is being attacked like it is and the worst part is it may be depriving people from knowing about something that could really help them out a great deal. To me that's really sad, but this is not my fight (which it has turned into). I am not the same person as Dr. Sears either. If I wanted to I could come in using numerous I.P. addresses making it pretty difficult to block me, but I have no intention of doing that, I would just like my I.P address removed.

Thank you!

Nick (Unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

You don't have much of a choice, you editted on Wikipedia as an anon, and there really is nothing that could be done. have you considering registering a username? Yanksox ^(talk) 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dr. Sears"

I would revert the blanking, I strongly suspect he's realizing it was a bad idea. Now, we need to fix Juice Plus up. You've done a good job! Yanksox ^(talk) 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this IP, 12.73.181.83 (talk • contribs • email). He's blanking the original anon's sig. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to your question

Dr sears is an enigma. First, I don't think he is the 'real' doctor sears from askdoctorsears.com. His claims were too outrageous and all the information he used was listed on the website, like a low-level marketing/distributor from JP+ was cutting and pasting. It did bring my attention to the website askdoctorsears.com which is a completely misleading 'appeal to authority' in the first place where 'he' (in the knowledge that NSA marketing types most likely wrote his site) blankets the site with his credentials then gives personal testimonals, that are by the way outrageous: "JP+ cured cancer, myopia, etc". The interesting thing, is that no effort was expended to conceal the fact that NSA/Juice Plus+ wrote the website -- look at http://www.askdoctorsears.com/html/4/T040500.asp and see the corporate graphics integrated into the site. Not only that but Juice Plus+ add banners everywhere. This makes me sad for the consumer out there is is trusting the credentials and not seeing the marketing links and money flow underneath the site.

As for the comments on the talk page, I don't really care. His contributions are not significant; their only significance is that they testify to the ardor JP+ folks will fight to defend their product. I would too if I put down that kind of money and time into a supplement. So I would let him remove his comments, no use entering an edit war over that and the comments are in the Wikipedia archives anyway.

What is more interesting is his warning on your talk page. I have to mull that over what 'he' is trying to accomplish there. Clearly, this individual is not too informed on how wikipedia works if he is trying to appear unbias and leaving warnings tied to his username. Maybe he doesn't know how non-anonymous Wikipedia is. Oh and BTW, Nick needs to learn about IP addresses (i.e. a hacker can't do anything with a ISP's ip-address), why doesn't he just sign up for an account? Tbbooher 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, you deserve this

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Yanksox, award an old school barnstar to Rhode Island Red for such an incredible body of work and tireless efforts to keeping Juice Plus in good quality. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus

I understand your frustration with the articles problems, but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism. This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility. I've tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule - please note that you're close to violating it yourself. If discussions with this editor haven't been working, please try using other forms of dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first warning that was given was in regard to vandalism involved the editor's removal of a link. As near as I can tell, the unwarranted removal of content/links qualifies as vandalism. Is that interpretation incorrect? The contributor Julia Havey replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8. According to Wikipedia guidlelines, this does qualify as vandalism, and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning. The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam/commerical links that were already listed on the page (i.e. Juice Plus corporate page), which seems appropriate to Wikipedia policy. In addition, since this contributor sells the product in question, their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized. This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism, so it cannot be argued that they are unaware of Wikipedia's policies. Lastly, as I understand it, the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming. I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter. Rhode Island Red 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your most recent revert [1] in which you removed the duplicate links, but the edit summary was "rv vandalism"; given the editor's history I don't think thats far from the truth, but I didn't want to see you set yourself up for a legitimate complaint. Its stretching it a bit to call these spam links - the link she's inserting is already contained in the external links section. We certainly don't need more than one copy of the link and I've left notes on her talk page about it; hopefully she'll understand, but given the long ranting emails I've received from her, I doubt it :( Its possible that others might see what you're doing as reverting simple vandalism, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and efforts to mediate. I agree with your general assessment.Rhode Island Red 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus and Elonka

Hi Red - I am very uncomfortable with the idea that someone who has a vested financial interest in a product should be actively involved in editing an article on the same. To me this goes completely against the spirit, and no doubt the letter of Wikipedia practice. I would say however that asking for my intervention or more detailed input however [as someone who you have identified as having edits reverted by Julia Harvey, and has made edits on articles related to Elonka] is unlikely to present me in the light as an good independent arbitor. Although I try and keep a dispasionate neutral voice on Wikipedia, I hope you can see that the stated context with which you contacted me would perhaps make any potential support for your position, seem suspect! From what I can see from the article and talk page, there is a long and complex history here. I offer you my moral support specifically in relation to your atttitude to 'no adverts' on Wikipedia; but I regret that I don't think it would be appropriate or helpful for your position to comment otherwise on your view that there has been inappropriate behaviour or collusion between other editors. All the best •CHILLDOUBT• 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand and I respect you all the more for it. And thanks for the moral support! Best wishes and happy editing to you. Rhode Island Red 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any alternative to Stephen Barrett, over at Juice Plus?

I'm appealing to you as the lonely defender of policy over at Juice Plus. I must confess that when I first saw the mention of Stephen Barrett at that page, I became nervous. Is there any alternative to using him there? I.e. anybody else who makes the same points. I gather that a lawsuit between Barrett and somebody else has been the subject of an Arbcom case. (Reference available on request). From his previous background, it's not obvious that he would be the world authority on MLM schemes. But you've looked at this issue more than me. If you were to drop S.B. from the article, it would only lose two sentences. Thanks, EdJohnston 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stressful Juice

Hello RIR. Since you've begun warning the other editors at Juice Plus, it might be time to gather outside opinions. While your standpoint is good in terms of policy, any time there is a charge of disruption, it helps to have more eyes on the problem. A fairly low-weight and unstressful way of doing that would be to ask for a peer review of the article (WP:PR). This is a way of getting independent advice from established editors that are new to the article.

There are also some administrators on call that have been known to swoop down and issue vivid warnings to people who aren't behaving well, if one of them is needed. For you to threaten action yourself may be somewhat less credible, because of your long history on the ramparts. Since you are defending the community, it should be no problem to materialize some members of it to help you. Let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I responded on my Talk. EdJohnston 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juice +

Here's what I understand:

That you're vandalising the Juice Plus article (vandalism comes in all shapes and sizes -- in this case it's the non-consensual insertion of disputed text)
That you're the only supporter for the inclusion of the text
and that you are going against consensus

I urge you to stop, before you dig yourself in any deeper. This situation can still be resolved amicably if you cease edit warring. Remember that the onus is on those seeking to include, not remove. Matthew 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, your use of the term vandal does not appear to follow from our policy documents. If RIR's changes are in fact against consensus the most that you would be able to argue is disruptive editing. I agree with your observation that there is an edit war in progress. Negotiation is good. EdJohnston 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Red, at this point, I think it's less about whether or not you're right, and more about whether or not you're willing to work in a collegial fashion with other editors. When you refer to other people's good faith edits as vandalism,[2] accuse them of misstating facts,[3][4][5][6][7] accuse them of disruptive editing,[8][9][10][11][12] and routinely revert people to insist on your own version,[13][14][15] good faith wears thin. For example, I asked you to take a break and work on a different article for awhile,[16] and you reacted by accusing me of "driving away productive contributors,"[17] which is not what that guideline means at all. When a Juice Plus distributor commented on the talkpage, you reacted by telling them they had a conflict of interest and telling them that they weren't allowed to even participate on the talkpage, which again, is not what that guideline means.[18][19][20] Being uncivil to other editors has also not been helpful.[21][22] In other words, when you revert people[23][24] and accuse them of vandalism[25] and policy violations,[26][27][28] [29] they're not going to be inclined to want to work with you in good faith, since they no longer see you as reasonable. Please, I don't think that anyone's trying to vandalize the article -- there are just vastly differing opinions on what "good article" means at this point. That's why I think that mediation would be the best option. I'm not trying to get you to leave Wikipedia -- I think you're a good researcher and a hard worker, and I'd like you to stick around and work on lots of different articles. But a simple glance at your contribs[30] is showing single-minded attention to this one subject, of what is really just a little-known nutritional supplement that really, not that many people care about. Why is it worth so much of your time and energy, when there are so many other worthy projects which would really benefit from your attention? For example, working on one of Wikipedia's vital subjects instead? --El on ka 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I appreciate the olive branch. I have laid out some of the history behind the adverse event section to illustrate my position more clearly. I hope you understand why I have been so insistent. If you wish to discuss specific issues regarding the content in the AE section, please outline them on the talk page rather than deleting the section again. Rhode Island Red 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Red, it's just not helpful for you to be telling people to stop deleting the section. It makes it sound like you're ordering people around, and that you feel that you've got more say over the article than they do. Which is not the case. The clear consensus is to not include the AE section. No one agrees with you. I mean, you're welcome to continue constructive discussion on the talkpage, but not to belittle other editors. And you must stop edit warring on the article page itself. Continuing to revert other editors is an absolutely ineffective way of getting your desired changes implemented. Revert wars do not work. They just make the participants look bad, and can result in the page being protected such that no one can edit it (as is currently the case). It is my strong recommendation that you agree to mediation, and that we try to find a way to negotiate in good faith. And please, can you answer my question? There are so many other topics which could benefit from your energy, I still don't understand why you feel it necessary to fight a battle on this one issue? --El on ka 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --El on ka 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, when you get a chance, could you please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus, and add your signature to the bottom section, affirming that you agree to mediation? Thanks, El on ka 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, are you not in agreement with the proposed mediation? Yours is the only vote outstanding. Please have a look at the Juice Plus mediation request page. Thanks. TraceyR 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please join us in our attempt to improve this article. I know we would be sitting at opposite sides of the table but your opinion would be valuble, especially since you have been the article's main editor since I started following this article in 2006.Citizen Don 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

The page Juice Plus has been protected for five days to deal with the edit warring. T_{Talk to me} 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Rhode Island Red)

Hello, Rhode Island Red. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, where you may want to participate.-- El on ka 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring

Please do not continue to edit war on the Juice Plus article. Its never a productive way to resolve differences in an article and leads to escalating tension. If there are new issues with the article that need to be addressed, I would be happy to assist informally mediating again if you think that would help. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks for the offer. Your input is always valued and would help immensely. Rhode Island Red 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, look, really - this has got to stop. You've been reminded over and over that edit warring is disruptive. Please use the discussion page of the article. Shell ^babelfish 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Shel. I didn't think that I necessarily had to ask permission to make a few small tweaks, which I felt were reasonable and very well-supported. But I can see how this might have aggravated the situation just when it was calming down. I noticed that you agreed with the changes in principle, so I will wait for more comments before making the changes, if you think that is what is warranted. Rhode Island Red 20:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Since any changes have been so controversial, its probably best to discuss them on the talk page and wait for comments first, no matter how well reasoned they seem. Articles usually aren't this difficult to work with - you might want to try looking around and finding something that needs updated for fun :) Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good suggestion. I think now that we have more eyes on the Juice Plus article I can safely turn my attention to some other areas that might be more fun and less controversial. Rhode Island Red 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've done 'argument from ignorance' to death even after someone noted it was offensive. Please stop. Shell ^babelfish 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I didn't mean it as a slur, seriously. "Argument from ignorance" is the proper term to describe the error and I hyeperlinked every usage of the term so that it wouldn't be misinterpreted as a slur against anyone. But if you think it seems inappropriate, I'll stop using it. I just hope my point wasn't lost. Rhode Island Red 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfC

I have commented on your user RfC. Hopefully you will have time to read my full comments. Whether or not you choose to answer the question(s) I asked, is up to you. Regardless, I strongly encourage you to develop an interest in other articles. Peace.Lsi john 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things to work on

If you'd like an interesting project, take a look at Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:What is a good article? . There is a list of articles,Wikipedia:Good article candidates, either waiting for review, or needing editing so they can pass review. You could either work on some of the articles listed "on hold" and see if you can fix them so they pass, or if you like, you could review some of the articles yourself and decide whether they "pass," "fail," or need minor work ("on hold"). Editing in this area of Wikipedia is quite gratifying because the articles are much better than average, and there is relatively little conflict. I just reviewed Isle of Man, and passed Beit She'an yesterday. Jehochman ^Hablar 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a break

Taking a break means.. well.. taking a break. Why are you back in the fight at Juice Plus? Re-engaging this quickly, without even pointing out problems to those who offered to support you, does not help your cause. Peace.Lsi john 19:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed that I was being insincere. I understood "taking a break" to mean taking a break from editing but not necessarily commenting on the Talkpage. In my experience, it is a lot easier to prevent destructive changes from occurring then to reverse them after the fact. It seemed that as soon as I said I would take a break, other editors (some of the same once who had been involved in recent conflicts) began to suggest adding incorrect information to the article and defending inappropriate deletion of content. I would appreciate your comments on the last 3 Talk page threads if you feel like looking into the issues at stake. I didn't directly contact you for input because I had assumed that you were still watching the discussion. Rhode Island Red 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching several dozen articles and talkpages. Taking a break could mean taking the article off your watch list, if it is that emotionally significant to you. I think history has demonstrated that you are not connecting with some of the editors on that project. That is simply a fact, not blame. Keep an eye on the article, if you must; or check in on it weekly. If you see relevant sourced material that has been deleted tell Jehochman or myself, and make a brief case for why its relevant, why the source is reliable, why the view is 'significant'. etc.. and we can 'represent' your points on the article. Going back onto the talk page and 'demanding' an answer is passive-aggressive and isn't a workable solution. Peace.Lsi john 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hip hop

Thanks for you comment, Rhode Island Red. You may want to examine Goth subculture, which links directly from Gothic Rock, and Metalhead which links from Heavy Metal.-Robotam 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:1746-1448-1-2-4-l.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1746-1448-1-2-4-l.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:D_salina.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:D_salina.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:1746-1448-1-2-4-l.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1746-1448-1-2-4-l.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. BetacommandBot 08:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend.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).

[edit] Please desist from your threatening behaviour

Please do check back through the history for harassment of you by me. Differences of opinion there have been, but that is not forbidden, surely. I have also made comments on another editor's request for you to be disciplined, but that, too, while no doubt unpleasant for you, is permitted. While you're at it you could also count the number of threats you have issued against other editors. Then reconsider whether you really want to request remedial action by WP admin. --TraceyR (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TraceyR, this is not open to debate. I have asked you repeatedly to stop harrassing me and yet the behavior continues. The next step will be to take this to the admins and request that you be blocked. Please desist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not harrassment; actually I'm trying to save you from yourself - the admins will consider your groundless complaint a waste of their time. --TraceyR (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The admins will also be pointed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, and can fairly easily see that RIR is still pretty much a Single-purpose account. --El on ka 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to see any good faith behind an intimidating comment like that Elonka. I am well aware of the details that will be brought to the table should this have to go to ArbCom for a chronic user conduct case against TraceyR and I have little doubt that the outcome will fall in my favor.

I am long way from being an SPA, and even if I were, it's no justification for TraceyR's chronic incivility, OT comments, and tendentious editing, nor would it exonerate her for surreptitiously acting as a conduit for a Juice Plus distributor (Julia Havey who has a COI and has been resorting to sock puppetry) on the Juice Plus talk page recently, and arguing strenuously in favor of inserting biased, unreliable company promotional sources into the article.

I have politely asked many times that TraceyR refrain from harassing me, to not make personal comments about other editors, and to stay OT on the Juice Plus talk page but this has yielded no improvement in the situation. It's gone on long enough that I'm not prepared to debate it any further. If it doesn't stop I will take it ArbCom and let the chips fall where they may. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A better bet than ArbCom, is mediation. If you try to file an ArbCom case, and it turns out that you rejected mediation even when it was offered, that will not make you look good. It's routinely the situation that the person who files the ArbCom case, is the person who ends up receiving the brunt of sanctions. So be careful what you wish for. --El on ka 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the WP etiquette here, but accusations of "chronic incivility, OT comments, and tendentious editing" sound to me rather like personal attacks. While I'm not immune to off-topic comments (who is?), the other two are serious allegations. Is that in keeping with WP rules?

As for the accusation of "surreptitiously acting as a conduit for a Juice Plus distributor (Julia Havey)", I started my question by stating openly that my attention had been drawn to an unmentioned source for the article. That isn't "surreptitious"; it's there on my WP talk page for all to see.

May I suggest that you step back a bit and try to relax. --TraceyR (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are overlooking a fundamental tenet of WP policy. It is not considered a personal attack to point out that soemone is personally attacking you.

You stated that this source was brought to your attention, but you ommitted the fact that it was brought to you by a Juice Plus distributor with whom there are longstanding issues related to COI, disruptive behavior, and sock pupperty.

I have stated my position on the issue of your harrassment very clearly and I expressed that I do not intend to debate this with you. There is no reason for you to continue to comment so I will now ask you to please stop posting on my user page, as it will only add further weight to any complaints against you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here: both of you need to stop. RIR, you were handling this fairly well until this exchange started here; you really need to find other Wikipedia articles to edit or consider giving up Wikipedia all together. Tracey, you got caught in an unfortunate situation and taking that out on others is not the proper way to handle things. It would be very appropriate at this time for the two of you to stop talking to each other all together and yes, this means dropping your editing of the JuicePlus article if you can't find a way to be civil there. Shell ^babelfish 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

- RhodeIslandRed, I tried to reply to you email, but it tells me that the email address provided does not exist. If you'd like to send me a note with your actual email, I'll be happy to send my reply over to you. Shell ^babelfish 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Thanks Shel, much appreciated. My e-mail should be up and running now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)