I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Hubby, two dogs and two cats are doing fine. I am swamped with work, so I guess that is a good thing. I do know that writing a couple of briefs, and brushing dogs' teeth and tweezing dogs' ear hair are enough for one night. G'Day!  ;-) Jance 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sarah, could you please look into this? I'm not pleased about getting attacked over good-faith contributions. – Chacor 10:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nick has handled it. – Chacor 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, please take a look at his (still rather uncivil) "olive branch": "i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar)", "If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs", and best of all "If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one)."

I see no reason why after being told to be civil he veils it in an "apology". Can you please do the necessary? – Chacor 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also sending to ANI btw) – Chacor 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments there. You'll see that I've written a long response to various issues. I did several rewrites trying to avoid "accusations and comments about each other" ... I hope I succeeded.

In any event, the connection between Andrew Bolt and Alexander Downer on this issue turns out to be completely bogus: Downer made his comments two days before Bolt's column appeared. Woops!

Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thanks for your comment. I'd like to be here too, but I have had enough of being plagued by vandals and crazies (like your friend Paaerduag), 90% of whom are excluded from CZ by the "real name" rule. I have several big projects in mind, like a new Holocaust article and new Lenin and Stalin articles, but I won't post them at WP because they would be picked to bits by cranks and communists. At CZ I can post them in the reasonable expectation that they will be edited only by people who know what they are talking about and whose real-life reputations can be scrutinised. Furthermore, they will eventually be declared "approved" and put before the public as FINISHED articles, which not one of WP's 1.5 million articles can claim. As I say, I am happy to make my CZ contributions available to WP, but not actually to post them here. I could however post them in my namespace here, so they would be signed by me, and then others could decide what to do with them. Adam 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generic thank you notes will probably come later :) But in the meantime, thanks for the nom, and for all your support - I appreciate it! Take care, and ta once again, riana_dzasta 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother you. I had taken a few weeks off the breast implant page while focusing on my actual job, and unfortunately much of the hard work that was done (with your help! and with Samir's support) has been undone. For example, the published findings of statistically significant increases in auto-immune symptoms was deleted -- for no reason. It was replaced with generalized statements about "everyone agrees that these implants don't cause disease" which is, of course, not true. Most worrisome, science-based evidence was replaced with political documentation, which holds to a different standard. Sarah, I know you're busy but I would be very grateful if you can help again Drzuckerman 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ewart, I know you were probably irritated with me over the incident with "Theangryblackwoman," but I didn't think that this would happen. I posted this message on HighInBC's talk page:

I hate to bring this up, but I just did a search on my name in Google, and I found this:1

What do you think? Acalamari 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Look at this too: 2. I didn't realize how much of a problem I would cause. What have I done... Acalamari 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my reporting of her to RFC was not done out of hatred to black people or women. Please believe me when I say that I do not hate women or blacks. Acalamari 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have to do anything, as there's nothing you can do. I just wanted to bring it to your attention, as you were involved in that case. Acalamari 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Apologies to all in the community. - Fred 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a werid one - I thought there'd be genuine news stories if someone was to post something like that - unless family have put an embargo in some way - really odd. She is in a nursing hme.SatuSuro 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC - no sign - I'd have thought they'd picked it up - but there might either be a lawyer/family member whose not revealing till after burial/cremation - but why/how the poster knows is another matter - probably leave off till it goes public, if its true. gees i dont envy your current stable of trouble makers! SatuSuro 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intiution was correct- it came out today... cripes - and the family had put an embargo - which means the early poster might have been a nursing home insider... oh well, ..we all gotta go sometime SatuSuro 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK. He's now well and truly on my watchlist. Sing out if there's anything else I can do. —Moondyne 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify some things on this issue so that you can better understand what I am doing. I am well aware of the earlier consensus reached; that's why I ceased my activities last time around. I did not want to cause trouble and maybe the time was not right. My intention this time around is simply to get some dialogue going and see if it leads anywhere. But I also believe that just because we reach consensus on a certain issue in Wikipedia does not mean that we took a fair action. Sure we performed a fair process, but the end result may be less than desirable, and this is one of those cases.

Second, a slight matter of Wikipedia policy that apparently has not been raised before, although I'm not too sure. Not including KOP in the lead is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's global perspective requirements; all articles must be written as if they were being read by somebody from New York in the United States or Harat in Zimbabwe. As was pointed out before, scores of Michael Jackson articles in other wikipedias include the KOP label. Only in the English Wikipedia is this an issue, and that's mainly because of disgruntled Americans (I can't imagine it's because of the British, who are head over heels in love with Michael Jackson, even though their press is a different story). Anyway, I write this not because I hope that you will agree with me, but simply to let you know that I do have actual policy concerns, ones that ostensibly have not been raised before.UberCryxic 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually take back my statement about a "fair process." Per my new comments on the talk page, I have reviewed the procedure that lead to this decision and can confidently say it was botched pretty badly. This is a shoddy "consensus" at best.UberCryxic 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, I wanted to say something about this revert today. I actually agree with the particular decision you took here, but the user's contributions highlight something that's missing from the article: a failure to highlight the musical stature of Michael Jackson. For example, in the Elvis article we have:

He remains a pop icon and is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years. Presley is one of the most talked about and written about performers of the 20th Century.

His voice, which developed into many voices as his career progressed, had always a unique tonality and an extraordinary unusual center of gravity, leading to his ability to tackle a range of songs and melodies which would be nearly impossible for most other popular singers to achieve.

Well, much of this also applies to Michael Jackson. Lots of people think the same thing about him, but this is not included in the article. Right now, the lead of the article just basically lists records, achievements, and awards. It's quite literally a quasi-useless laundry list flooded with mostly irrelevant and arbitrary facts. Nothing is mentioned about Michael Jackson's vocal abilities or his moves. The user that you reverted might've taken it a bit over the top, but the larger point remains.UberCryxic 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not to be too upfront and rude, but I detect somewhat of a misunderstanding on your part regarding what Wikipedia means by NPOV. Things like "Elvis is reputed to be the King of Rock and Roll" or "Michael Jackson is reputed to be the King of Pop" are allowed because, although they both are POV statements, they are major opinions regarding the subject in question. And if you take a sociological analysis of Wikipedia, you could easily argue that all documented information is basically a major opinion. So you can't just delete things because they're POV; you can only do that if they're believed by such a remote part of the general global population that the information is not worth including in an encyclopedia. If someone came in the Holocaust article and said it did not happen, then that has to be deleted. But it's not groundbreaking news to say that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest entertainers of all time, or at least the 20th century, because it's believed by a significant percentage of the relevant global population (ie. those that listen to music).UberCryxic 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Beethoven, for example, it says: "He is generally regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of music, and was the predominant figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music." This is actually a more POV (too Euro-centric, although I myself agree with it) opinion than saying something about Michael Jackson because Beethoven was not known to the world at large when he lived, whereas pretty much everyone knows who Michael Jackson is today. But the point is: obviously this IS POV, and there is pov on Wikipedia, so lay off a little.UberCryxic 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a final thing, to give you a heads up: once we move past the KOP issue, I'm going to rewrite those two middle paragraphs dealing with his music career. Right now they're pointless data dumps. I'm keeping you in touch with all of this so you don't freak out when you see something different. I will say that the body of the article is quite appropriate and nice, but the lead is pathetic and horrible.UberCryxic 17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton's bullying (among other things) has landed him a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can by clicking here. If you wish to stay out of the RfC thing, that is cool and I will respect your decision. I am just letting people know of the RfC that might not know it exsists. Have a good weekend....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome:) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "wikistalker" comment in the WP:CN discussion is supposed to be me, but I am not stalking Calton. I have much, MUCH more interesting things to do. Do I have him on my watchlist...yes. I have all the people I have messaged on my watchlist. Him, I have to have on there because I often have to defend myself on other people's talk pages, as that is where he likes to really bash people, he then calls that "wikistalking". When he says that, I think of a kid who has gotten caught with getting into the cookie jar and they blame their imaginary friend for their actions. It is kinda like this. I respond on a page to his rude comments about me, he calls it "stalking" cause I actually read those comments he wrote and sometimes posts them on his RfC for all to see.

If he wouldn't badmouth me all over Wiki, I would GLADLY take him of my watchlist, but I am not about to have my name dragged through the dirt by him. I do hope though, that you don't incure the rath of Calton by responding on his RfC....if you do, then I deeply apologize. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His ill-considered RFC and his continual canvassing ([1], [2], [3], [4]), his sudden interest in the mainspace edits I've made in the last few weeks ([5] and [6], [7] [8] readding spam readding spam re-readding spam [9], and his repeated removal of the {{db-repost}} tag from WRAJ Internet Radio) and {{ifd}} tags from four now-deleted images; his canvassing of everyone I've had a disagreement with for the last few weeks, looking for support ([10] [11] [xxx]); his continual pestering of my Talk page ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and [23], the last two about his out-of-policy removals of the {{db-repost}} tag, so particularly rich) despite his repeated claims of "staying away from" me ([24] [25] [26] [27]); and, of course, his cute little "open letter" to "an editor who shall remain nameless"; all of this with the clear intention of seeing me "punished" ([28] [29] [30].

Other than that, nope, not Wikistalking me in the least. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am going to say this here and then we can continue this on my or your talk page as I am not going to argue with you on someone else's talk page. The WRAJ Internet Radio thing, a mistake on my part for which I do believe I apologized to the necessary people and all was forgiven. The "ill-considered" RfC, no matter how is considered, more and more and more people are signing it and signing in my favor, so must be working. You just get upset when I tell someone new about it....and yes, I want to see you punished for actions like the above. You post any and every little detail of something I have done (no matter what it was) that has pissed you off and then you consider yourself the good guy and call me the stalker?! HA! If I didn't keep a damned close eye on you, I wouldn't see all these little posts (like the above) you make bashing me.

Now, Calton, I consider User:Musical Linguist, User:El_C, User:Firsfron, User:Sarah Ewart, and others friends on here and they have been nothing but kind to me. You are the ONLY editor that I am currently arguing with. User:A Man In Black and User:Metros232, I believe, have put our differences aside and are working together on things. You have CONTINUED a little spat that started with the KXGN page some, what, 3 weeks ago?! That is a tad on the psychotic side, dontcha think?

To Sarah, I greatly apologize to you that this continued arguement between Calton and I has spilt onto your talk page and I will leave your talk page now. Again, my apologizes. Calton, I think it would be fair to User:Sarah Ewart if you did the same and if you wish to continue this, we can take it to your talk page or mine (if you want to talk, not argue, and want to actually read what I have to say and not delete everything). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a reasonably active editor until aroung May last year when Paaerdaug started his jihad against the BGS page and eventually became so completely frustrated that I basically quit wikipedia. Now that some action has been taken against him, I feel ready to start editing again without having to feel like I'll accidentally start a talk page flame war. So again thanks for your help and all other administrators who have been involved. --Cornflake pirate 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain how linking the Sisters of Mercy page to a Sisters of Mercy school site is considered spamming. It seems clear that many subjects in Wikipedia are censored to such an extent that it fails in its purpose of providing accurate upto date information and even worse gives a misleadinging impression. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Doctor (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the contrary I would imagine most people who go on to a Sisters of Mercy Site would want to learn about the current activities of the congregation. But then an article about the Sisters of Mercy that doesnt refer to the Magdalene Laundry shows that the Wikipedia pages are just as incomplete and selective in their reportage as any other part of the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Doctor (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given that you consider anyone who critises Wikiepedia yet also attempts to post on it a hypocrite seems to indicate that Wikipedia is very much a Web Community with a 'if you are not with us you are against us' mentality. That's fair enough every community has its own attitude to outsiders and I now see what yours is.

Hi Sarah. I may need help or an objective view on this article. A venomous lawyer hater is wanting to use Overlawyered and Reason to write an attack piece on another lawyer. This lawyer was exonerated by the Bar for ethics violation re coaching witnesses. (I have read what supposedly was done, and it did not appear unethical, anyway. "Coaching" witnesses can also be deemed preparation, without which the lawyer would have committed malpractice). And that is what the Bar found as well as independent ethics experts. However, this editor is baiting me. When when I suggested that he write a criticism section but without such political citations, he then accused me of refusing to follow WIki rules. I really don't have time for this jerk, and I hate to see the article turn into the muckraking character assassination it first was. Baron has been controversial so a criticism section is probably warranted....but not the way it was before I changed it some months ago. He has been a high profile asbestos lawyer - and as you probably know, the asbestos claims are controversial. Some, rightly so, I might add. I understand the desire to preserve one's rights in a settlement/suit, but have a hard time justifying compensation for someone who has no proven illness. ANyway, that is beside the point. I don't want to get into it anymore with this editor. He seems to be more interested in a fight than in legitimate editing. My patience is thin right now, so I probably need to avoid this..Jance 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, this person is not allowing me to avoid it, since he continues harassing me.Jance 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly learning the ropes ... you've been a great help. Pura Vida (Pure Life ... national Costa Rican saying).Ilena (chat) 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edited a complaint about a user who is currently harassing me avoiding sanctions by deleting it and saying "These matters were dealt with months ago." Can you point me to that resolution? And how do I deal with the harassment? -- TedFrank 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a complaint re me, because it was using names that I do not go by, and he is using my real name, which I have NEVER gone by on WIkipedia. In fact, if he continues this I have a legal claim for invasion of privacy. He is digging up issues that you know about Sarah. Please tell this person to stop with the personal attacks. This is outrageous. He is attacking me personally. Something needs to be done NOW Jance 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted continues to bait and harass me, for what reason I do not know. I don't even edit on the TortDeform website as I do not have time. Ted must have really done quite an exhaustive search, because I do NOT use my real name on the internet or on Wikipedia.

Jance 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I have filed an An/I. Ted's conduct is an invasion of privacy, and pure harassment. There is no sane reason for him to continue this.Jance 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am restoring the following comment that Jance deleted to make it seem like I wasn't apologetic. -- TedFrank 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize -- I did not realize that Jance does not use her real name on this site, when she is on "highly political websites" advertising herself as a "civil justice Wikipedia editor." I will not use her real name on this site again. But one has to acknowledge that Jance's threat of litigation is inappropriate. It's not the first time she has threatened lawsuits in editing disputes]. -- TedFrank 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\

I used that comment of yours, TED, in my AN/I complaint. Your "apology" had more personal information which is why I deleted it. I also deleted your dredging up alleged past misdeeds.

Hi Sarah,

I wasn't trying to time my complaint for maximum effect. I'd only come across the edit summary that day.

Also, I didn't use a template yesterday. Thanks, Andjam 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please withdraw your accusation that I used a template on her yesterday? In response to your comments, I'll try to avoid posting on her talk page in future. Thanks, Andjam 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of my talk page, I've outlined in bullet points 3 to 5 how I plan to change my behaviour towards Rebecca in future. I hope it covers your concerns about my behaviour towards her. Thanks, Andjam 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah. I have been wanting to drop you a line since Riana’s RfA was still active (I’m glad she decided to apply for adminship). I have been really busy lately, really busy! In fact I may take an extended break. In a nutshell - Hopefully things are going well for you and yours. Take care ‘till later. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]