User talk:Betsythedevine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Material from 2005 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2005. Material from 2006 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2006.

Contents

[edit] Requested boilerplate on commons identity

Verifying that my Wikimedia Commons identity is also Betsythedevine--in order to vote for Picture of the Year (2006). betsythedevine 02:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February, 2007 messages related to User:Nirelan

[edit] The Kind Message

As I mentioned in that kind message, I didn't go into a detailed investigation. I looked at what he cited, thought it was in good faith. I also didn't take note of the blanking, my quick overview saw simply removing text, not vandalism. I'm sorry if I offended you. I was brought into the situation to help, and all I've done is caused confusion. So I'm stepping out. Ganfon 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nirelan

Betsy, I have proven that what I put is true and you have reversed it twice. One more time would be a violation of the 3RR rule.-- Nirelan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirelan (talk • contribs) 17 February 2007

Betsy, I got your note. On my Talk page I made a list of relevant files, in case the issue gets reopened and has to be explained again to other administrators. EdJohnston 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed! betsythedevine 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote for the benefit of User:Nirelan

The arguments User:Danja raised on my talk page about Dave Winer were discussed in detail in the appropriate place, which is the Dave Winer talk page, a discussion now archived but findable in Talk:Dave_Winer#Old_threads. They did not and do not represent a consensus POV about Dave Winer. And now, three months after that dust-up, Danja and I are working together to make Wikipedia better by trying to compile and add accurate information about the early history of RSS. betsythedevine 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Please note that to create archive pages, you should use a forward slash "/" in order to create a subpage. I've fixed this with your user talk archives (hope you don't mind): recently a lot of these pages have been deleted. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-existent

Please explain how you define "non-existent." --evrik (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday (May 8) I reverted your addition to Internet troll of the then-non-existent article epicaricacy. (A Wikipedia search for that word used to re-direct to its more common synonym Schadenfreude.) Today (May 9) you created an article for epicaricacy/ [1] . Said article is no longer non-existent, and you will notice that I did not re-delete your re-addition of a link to it from Internet troll. betsythedevine (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Things change. That's why the redirect no longer exists. The word actually exists. The soft redirect was then out in place. I appreciate you not reverting the change. --evrik (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposite of epicaricacy

An Olive branch
An Olive branch

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be a good thing if the tone of the debate becomes less heated. betsythedevine (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doing my best to contribute to a peaceful resolution of what should be a reasoned debate about Wikipedia articles, but I would appreciate it if you could also calm down your supporter User:Sur de Filadelfia, who has followed up on attacking my actions in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Epicaricacy with accusations of plagiarism in Talk:Schadenfreude and the AfD of Betsy Devine. betsythedevine (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Betsy Devine

An article that you have been involved in editing, Betsy Devine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Devine (Second nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages for Evrik

I've restored User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 per this request. User talk:Evrik/Archive 13 had no relevant revisions in it -- just a result of a page move. I haven't checked out the discussion at WP:ANI yet, so I can't comment on it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't do it

You have a lot of gall removing people's comments. Amnesia grrl (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You, banned user South Philly, have a lot of gall disrupting a discussion of AfD with a long off-topic comment. I moved it and left a notice about where others could find it, because it does not belong where you put it. IMO, I showed courtesy in putting it elsewhere. But in spite of all your claims about what an "experienced user" I am, my experience is in editing articles and trying to make them better, not in policies much beyond NPOV and NPA. Not in ArbComms, AfDs, RFCs, RFAs, etc. Since I'm not sure what the policy is about removing abusive off-topic comments by a banned user, I won't revert your re-addition, so if other users think it belongs on the AfD, then it will stay there. betsythedevine (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy links for future reference

Whew! I was just involved in a long and bruising dispute over an AfD I filed. Things that I wish I had known when all this was happening:

  • WP:DELETE (filing an AfD) is very strong medicine to deal with the kind of article issues that might more amicably be solved, assuming consensus, with WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT. If there is disagreement about one of these options, there is a page for listing contentious mergers to invite outside comment. If a page is deleted, that means the article, its history, and its talk history are all wiped out of Wikipedia. So unless the article is slanderous or otherwise abusive, there is no need to invoke such a heavy solution.
  • Wikipedia:DR: Wikipedia has a nice long page on dispute resolution with all kinds of information about solving disagreements with other editors.
  • Wikipedia:UTM Pile of different templates for responding to spam, vandalism, test edits, page blanking, etc. in a polite but standardized way with varying degrees of WP:AGF as appropriate.
  • Wikipedia:ANI "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." It also has a verrrry long list at the top of the page about how to deal with many specific problems, e.g. suspected sockpuppets, vandalism, etc.

I hope that I can avoid future wiki-fights, but (considering that I have some contentious topics on my watchlist) I will probably need this information some day in the future. betsythedevine (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epicaricacy was not a content fork

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.

—Wikipedia:CFORK#Related articles

Stop spreading your lies.151.197.116.67 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Two articles about distinct words for the same topic are a content fork. Josephine is not a synonym for Napoleon. If you had been able to convince people that epicaricacy was a distinct but related "topic" from schadenfreude, then this wouldn't have been discussed as a content fork. I am sorry that you are so unhappy about the outcome of this discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackberry

I've blocked the accounts that have engaged in vandalism in the past day, and protected a couple of pages. This user's vandalism is more widespread than I'd realized. It's probably worth posting a notice on AN/I to alert other admins. Complicating matters is the fact that there are good edits coming from those IPs as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I did file the ANI as you suggest [2], as the problem simply spread further after your initial block. As a result, both John Amos and Good Times were semi-protected for a while. betsythedevine (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)