User talk:Catherineyronwode

This is Catherineyronwode's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives

Archive 2006 The Year of Aleister Crowley Archive 2007 The Year of Alice Bailey Archive 2008 The Year of Hrafn

Your user page comments are entirely correct: Wikipedia is designed to be a battlefield. I try to teach this to my students, both by encouraging them to participate and by showing them select diffs, but my scope is limited. It is my sincere hope that, as a notable author, you might share your understanding of Wikipedia with a more general audience. Perhaps you could get an editorial published on the topic. - Lanny 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

• Wikipedia was not the product of intelligent design. It was initiated as a stopgap measure and its success and development since seem to be a good example of evolution. This is, of course, driven by the survival of the fittest and so it behoves us to be fit. The predators and parasites that have occupied various ecological niches are to be expected. Imagine yourself to occupy a different niche, choosing a suitable totem to symbolise this. Catherine might be a great tree or wood, for example - indifferent to the foxes and wolves, as it steadily grows and endures. Myself, I might be a squirrel that plays in its branches ... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with you more, cat. The whole place is a battlefield. You can either keep fighting or give up; I prefer to keep fighting, because when we give up, "they" win. I work mostly with comics articles and RPG stuff (how ironic), and those and any fiction suffer just as much from dealing with people with a battleground mentality as anything else, and perhaps moreso. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, you make some very good points. I don't think it is all necessarily evilly intended -- or even intended at all -- but the way the process is structured is essentially guaranteed to create a battlefield scenario. And the more important - esp. socially -- the topic is, the more intense the battle aspect inevitably becomes. I'm not sure I will keep doing it (editing), but I do get occasional glimmers of hope when I see an article land in a stable position with a reasonably accurate and balanced presentation. And I have to note the irony that you are still out there editing away yourself, many months after the battlefield manifesto. Cheers. Pechmerle (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the more important an issue is the less likely it is that the rules will actually apply to it. Wikipedia claims "Neutral point of view is determined by its prevalence in reliable sources, not it's prevailance among editors." This is a set-up for failure as has been proven. With editors making the determination it will invariably be the editors' view that prevails. A neutral view is inherently incompatible with such an editing philosophy. The only way forward is multiple points of view and since it is impossible to make this change the way wikipedia is set up somebody else will take the lead. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only real way forward is to have real editors, who are empowered to make substantive decisions, not just enforce (inherently flawed) process rules. It doesn't even have to be undemocratic, which I expect would be the biggest initial squawk. We could elect those who take on that role. A transition to that from where WP is now would be immensely difficult. The probable alternative is that over time WP becomes less and less relevant, and is no longer regarded as an encyclopedia. Heck, it isn't a true encyclopedia now, with the huge amount of fluff both as articles, and within articles. And, as now run, enormously too much energy is required to ever get an article on a controversial topic into something resembling reasonably accurate but balanced shape. Oh well, WP was an interesting idea. Pechmerle (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple points of view are already in action on Wikinfo. Whether people should give up is a difficult question. There are arguments on both sides. Against what's said above there's the point that, if all the honest editors give up, leaving propagandists to take over & carry on the war against each other, Wikipedia would quickly become totally discredited, &/or forced to change. I can't tell people what to do. I'm a bit inconsistent. I no longer edit articles, but I still post comments. Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nooB editor, active a few months, thinking seriously about giving up. The battling is wearying, no fun. And I agree that in many ways Wikipedia is designed as a battleground, and invariably leads to all kinds of feuding. Does Wikipedia attract people who like to argue? Perhaps. I can be rather stubborn, argumentative at times. And while as individual battlers we may not like having to battle, perhaps in many cases the overall result is positive for readers -- that is, does the battling mean that the good ideas win out? Or does the spam and junk and crap win out? I haven't figured these things out yet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three factors aggravate things, in my view. (1) Wikipedia's anonymity (identities traceable not to real people but only computers) (2) the unfair imbalance between long creation time and fast deletion time and (3) rule complexity. Taken together, these three factors mean that Wikipedia is a perfect place for bullies to satisfy a personal need for power. A user armed with rules and a bent for destruction can have a field day pushing people around. And perhaps we might use the term Wikibullies to describe experienced yet secretly destructive users who browbeat fellow editors with narrow interpretations of complex rules and mask aggressiveness with a facade of helpfulness and an image of "following the rules". They sour the atmosphere. They poison the place for constructive editors. They don't contribute constructively. It's my hunch that a small group of editors in Wikipedia are Wikibullies who wreck the place for many others. There is community discussion about why many good editors keep leaving, and one hypothesis is that they are discouraged and frustrated by destructive people playing power games.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine, I suspect that were we to compare positions on a list of major and minor issues in spiritualism and religion, politics, culture, sociology and history, we would agree on just about nothing. But it's fitting that I see you as an important ally in the one arena that has the ability to trump it all: Freedom of Thought. Please do not let thought-suppressing cabals of Wiki abusers blunt your determination to seek true neutrality, inclusiveness, and real world balance in treatment of faith topics. These cabals (especially the so-called ID Cab) stand for suppression of free thought, censorship of ideas, disrespect of spiritual and religious faith, and single-minded advancement of an intolerant and narrow-minded point of view. Folks like you are the only thing that stand in the way of their goal to denude Wikipedia of all but their "politically acceptable" thought. Good luck in all you do!24.21.105.252 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Not just fact tagging

Jack Merridew 09:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

working through the lower chakras is a bitch. and thats what were here for, in one model of reality. its getting very dark in here, hope the light breaks through. or maybe were all trying too hard to stay in the light, ignoring the darkness. wheres walt kelly when we need him? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning to drop you a note about this when it was AfDed but it got rapidly kept so is OK but I thought it worth seeing if you had any extra sources, especially from your time as editor. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the note -- i added some more notable names and a ref. cat (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Emperor (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't written about serial killers in awhile but I'll see what I can do. [[User:HumanFrailty]] (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have deleted M J Anderson from the page People speculated to have been autistic because of the feeling that it should list only deceased people, or, more properly, people who've been speculated to be autistic only after their deaths. This is a controversial article and this policy may change; the last time a murderer was added to the AS list there was an all-out edit war. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your comment on my talk page. Actually, there is a notice on that page that says not to add living people, but I think editors tend to overlook it, and besides, there was already one living person on the list until today as the result of an unfinished edit conflict, so clearly the rule wasnt being upheld (including by me). Perhaps my saying that I had a "feeling" it should list only deceased people wasnt the best wording. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. No problem. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've just now reverted the redirects (they weren't done by me! {smiles}) of those articles about convicted or accused Craigslist killers. Again, Catherine, thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CATHERINE.......

Probably "Too Long, Didn't Read" - sorry.

1. .......I didn't change Craigslist killer to a dab...V did.
2. After which I restored it. Then V insisted it was a dab. So I restored it again and this time moved Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers (the reason being that a list is not a dab so V couldn't then f* with it).
3. Then V started a second article named Craigslist killer. (You can do that after an article has changed names by simply going to the original title's redirect page and editing it to instead start a new page. Which V did to make a brand new dab.) So, anyway, your article was saved as a "List" article -- and, also, V got his "dab"....
4. Then I turned his dab into a redirect. (This I did cos V INSISTED in listing accused folks' names plainly as "Craigslist killers" which is a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons vio!)
5. Wikidemon tagged the original article (which was now titled "List of") with a tag suggesting it be reworked for various reasons. Than I deleted this tag saying the article should either go for review at Articles For Deletion or remain untagged.
6. Anyway, I ended up tagging the "List of" article for deletion review, but then "voted" for its being Kept. (BTW if there are substantial votes to keep an article it isn't deleted. It doesn't take a majority to keep or anything. And even if a majority of folks would vote for a nominated article to instead be merged somewhere, even in a case such as this such an article still wouldn't end up being deleted. At least not before whoever is working on the article merges it somewhere (the target of which would always be chosen by actual writers of the article in any case). So, in other words, there's little to fear from a Articles For Deletion reveiw and much to be gained. That is, once an article passes, then people such as V who basically hang around simply to blank and reblank etc the article then have to accept the consensus of the greater community and lay off. Got it?)

I know there's a lot of words in the last enumerated item, but I hope you were able to follow it. {smiles}

Anyway the bottom line is I didn't turn the article into a dab!

Love, ↜Just me, here, now … 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of "Internet homicide" may commence here. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

has commenced here. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a new name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. If you could make a comment there I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. ↜Just M E  here , now 06:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this but while looking through talk pages yours came up. I see you have a long history with the subject in question. Most recently he's making his biased comments on Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy. Now when challenged that these are in fact his views he's falsely reducing the discussion to an archive claiming as his reason: "Off-topic. This page is for discussing (preferably specific) improvements to this article, not who is a "real scientist"". What the heck, HE brought it up and now he wants to bury it because supposedly there's no discussion relating to the topic. Biofase ^flame| stalk  00:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Catherine, it was good to know you. [1]. Malcolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.139.29 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catherine, having read the wonderful essay "What is Wikipedia?" on your user page, I thought maybe you might like to have a look at a couple of possible ways ahead by folk like you who do care:

• WP:Areas for Reform
• WP:Development committee

and just recently:

• Wikimedia strategic planning: Call for proposals

With good wishes, Esowteric+Talk 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed a bit on this page:[2] Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen wiped your commentary right off the Dugard case's talkpage. ↜Just M E here , now 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i restored it. What's going on there? Talk to me! --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see, cat. I think Gwen maybe has got to balance a tendency not to be at all gunshy with a need to stay out of getting in all too many of brouhahas, in order for her reputation not to suffer (generally speaking -- ?) I think, however, in the aggregate she's a plus. Having people who will go the distance for what they perceive as best for the project (the "not-being-gunshy" bit) comes in handy, in many cases, I'd guess. (I don't really watch her -- or even other admins, for that matter, so I'm just guessin here.) Also she's a good writer, talented with words (a skill you appreciate, I'm sure!) ↜Just M E here , now 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. After i restored the material, she did not remove it again, so, fingers crossed, it was just a slip of the mouse. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's over in England. So... lol ↜Just M E here , now 04:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still blushing over this, even if it was but a slip of the mouse. Thanks for taking the time in letting me know it happened. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the cat's away, the mice will play... *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nooB editor, active a few months, revamped substantially a business article, then got into a protracted battle with another editor. What follows is MY side of a dispute over a business article. (the other editor thinks I'm the harasser) I removed his/her name and references to the article because I don't want to continue the war with this other editor; but I thought it might make interesting reading? And it illustrates what Cat is saying on her user page about battling, and why it can make Wikipedia less fun. For me, it makes Wikipedia less fun; stepping back, one could think that the structure of Wikipedia almost encourages such fisticuffs. And, when there's some civility and genuine respect for the rules, I think everybody benefits from "fair" battling; but when it becomes a mud-sling-fest, everybody loses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience parallels mine, and it is interesting that it took place in an entirely different interest-sector, namely business, a very materialistic and fact-checkable area in which deletions cannot be said to be based on purely ideological grounds. Thanks for posting this here, but i would also hope you post it somewhere that some of the bureaucrats might see it. Wikipedia is seriously losing writers (falsely called "editors") because we are all so tired of donating hours of research and writing time for deletionistic target practice.

For me, the temptation to write for Wikipedia is based in part on the coolness of wiki markup language, so this year i paid a tech person to create a wiki for me. Now, when i return to articles that i wrote and researched years ago and find them half the size they were, ruined by deletionist editors, i don't fight. I just go back in the article history, grab my own text and any other good text that was part of the pre-deletionistic Wiki collaboration, and host it at one of my own sites, either in html or in my own wiki. My largest site is rated at about 71,000 in the alexa.com ranking system (WP is at about 7 on their scale, i think), so it gets a fair amount of traffic -- and actually, because i focus on only a few topics there. the traffic is keyword specific and i think the articles are getting seen as much there as they would be seen here at WP.

Wikipedia is not writer-friendly and thus it is foolish of us to waste our time writing well-researched articles here.

These days, when i feel tempted to write for Wikipedia, beyond un-logged-in touch-ups and grammar fixes or additions to current events articles, i just stop. I literally "just say no."

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text of a piece i wrote at mediawiki commons, where a discussion is brewing about the loss of writers (so-called "editors") from Wikipedia. The repost here is due to the fact that fewer people will read it where it was originally posted.

After years of writing for WP (which WP denigratingly calls "editing"), i started my own wiki on a topic-cluster that was having content retention problems at WP, using mediawiki software and limiting my staff to three writers. We are doing great. We enjoy the work, we are open to adding new, qualified writers (and, yes, we credit these contributors as WRITERS, not mere "editors"), and the site is thriving in its own way.

The topic-cluster i selected for my wiki experiment was Folk Magic, including Southern Black folkways; world-wide religious belief in clerical divination, including 19th and 20th century religions such as Spiritism, Spiritualism, and New Thought, and the attendant biographies of personages associated with the development of these religions; and a survey of the divination practices developed by various ethnographic groups, e.g. Scottish and Irish tea leaf reading, Scandinavian egg-divination, African American dream divination, Anglo-American rural dowsing and doodle-bugging, Chinese I Ching fortune telling, etc. In the interest of full disclosure, i will note that i am a published author on these subjects, and also a "notable wikipedian."

These topics were virtually taboo at WP, due to "ownership" by atheistic and skeptico-scientistic materialists who would not permit even mere descriptions of these subjects to stand in the encyclopedia without injecting their negative commentaries, which often took up 50% or more of a given article after they revised it. They often sub-headed their attacks on the material "Criticism," and, yes, they included "Criticism" of everything from the lives of 19th century New Thought authors to the fact that Cantonese-Americans born in the USA often use a system of divination employing 78 strips of bamboo dedicated to the Buddhist goddess Kwan Yin (Guanyin). After 3 1/2 years of attempted contributions to WP on these topics, during which i watched my texts repeatedly defaced by POV-pushing and admin-supported "skeptics" and drive-by racists (you haven't lived until you've found an article you spent 12 hours composing littered by the words "Niggers and porch-monkeys"), i simply collected my texts and took them elsewhere, to a cooperatively-owned non-profit wiki in which contributors manage their own content.

Can WP do what we did? I doubt it, frankly. The "democratic experiment" inherent in WP is going to contiue to run its full and entropic course. Like Usenet, and like the ODP/DMOZ, Wikipedia has peaked as a social network for intellectuals and is on the downward slide. Bandwidth is now so cheap that any author worth his or her salt can create a relevant domain name and host essays and topical articles that will easily be found by google's search engine. Why would any writer donate writing to WP, where writing is called 'editing" and bozos can abort an entire page and admins can "own" a topic and destroy content at whim?

My most popular site -- on the obscure topic of folk magic, and all written by me in html -- now has a rank of 71,000 at Alexa. Our collective new mediawiki site -- on the aforementioned obscure topic-cluster -- only went online on June 6, 2009 and already ranks in the 1,000,000 range at Alexa. We expect it to rank under 100,000 within three years.

Yes, i still write for WP, mostly bcause i am a polymath and when a passing news story outside of my chosen field catches my eye, i like to contribute, but i do so as an IP, and as a result i exprience considerable arrogance and abuse from admins.

So good luck, WP -- but you've already lost a lot of "experts" and professional writers. Bandwidth and hosting are chickenfeed-cheap; we have Yahoo Groups, MySpce, and Facebook for our social friendship needs; and we take enough pride in our work that we like to call it "writing" not "editing" and we like to see it stand out, undefaced, whole, intact against the ravages of a mindless boobocracy and WP's croneyistic cabal of "owning" admins and "editors."

Cordially, catherine yronwode, the IP known as "Ol' 64" -- 64.142.90.33 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tura Satana is of Cheyenne descent alright, she told me so herself. If in doubt, feel free to contact her through her website or her MySpace site. Best wishes, Frankly speaking (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I doubt i will revisit that list, though -- i was just doing a drive-by cleanup of the Cherokee Descent category -- so feel free to work on it yourseelf, okay? Cordially, cat yronwode

My reply there is a little snippy, but just wanna assure that it isn't directed at you or your addition of the cite even though I think it is unnecessary. I've had more dealings with grundle2600 on many political articles than I care to, and today is just par for the course. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the quote, you are advised to stop restoring the text without a solid consensus on the talk page. Keep in mind that I am making this call as an administrator under the terms of the "biographies of livig persons" policy. If there is consensus on the talk page that it does not suggest an issue that as yet is not verifiable, then it certainly can be restored - but not before. You are free to challenge this call through the appropriate channels if you feel it is necessary, and I can provide appropriate links if you need them. Keep in mind that I am writing to you and discussing this at length because I do not wish to see a well-meaning contributor possibly incur a block over what should be a simple direction to discuss first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are threatening to block me from Wikipedia over a five word sentence David Letterman told millions of viewers on nationally broadcast television and which has been printed in hundreds of newspapers. Groovy, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine, I am not threatening you with anything. Furthermore, I have gone out of my way to try to discuss this with you in an effort to avoid any potential issues that could arise from this. The BLP policy is much more restrictive than other aspects of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and administrators are tasked with using extra vigilance in overseeing them. All I am asking of you is that you get consensus on the talk page for your text. Nothing more, nothing less. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to Self-ref (talk · contribs · logs)? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's my husband. His name is nagasiva bryan w. yronwode. You can view pictures of our wedding here. Enjoy! Oh yes, and please assume good faith. Thank you very much. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Catherineyronwode! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 289 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Richard Cavendish (occult writer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Anna Riva - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Draja Mickaharic - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catherine, could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?! StefanWirz (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rami R 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked through the edits of Sundae and there clearly was quite a bit of IP vandalism that day. I could see you thought Rami R meant you when he referred to IP vandalism but if you think about it - that seems unlikely doesn't it? He has explained. In the circumstances, continued insistence that you were called a persistent vandal and an edit summary saying "fuck you" was a bit over the top and certainly uncivil. If editing in a state of annoyance it's always best to click "show preview" first.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to make sure you understood (someone else already mentioned it too) that the page got protected because of vandalism from other IP addresses, not from you. Fwiw, I've always liked your writing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you saw what I wrote at ANI, so here it is:

Looking at the sequence of events during the 3rd, the key facts you overlooked were the request for page protection, the timing of the vandalisms, and the timing of the fulfillment of the request for page protection:

1. I'm seeing questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 23:47 on the 2nd, then on the 3rd at 01:00, 01:28, 01:29, 02:03, 02:19, 02:28, 03:04.
2. I'm guessing Google posted their thing no later than 04:00 UTC, as that would be midnight EDST in the US.
3. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 04:16, 04:20, 04:23, 04:55, 05:05, 05:22, 05:47, 05:48, 06:04, 06:26, 06:41.
4. Tbhotch requested protection for the Sundae page at 06:47, due to the Google thing.[3]
5. More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 06:49, 07:25, 07:34, 07:49, 08:17, 08:20, 08:22, 08:25, 08:29, 08:31.
6. Your first edit as an IP came at 08:33 and the last at 09:46.
7. Rami fulfilled the RFPP request and semi'd Sundae at 09:48.
8. You begin editing using your login at 09:51.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't looking for an apology. I just wanted you to realize that there had been vandalism, earlier than your updates - and that it was the 3-hour delay in getting the page protected that was no small part of the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have apparently copied articles from Wikipedia to the readersandrootworkers.org Wiki with which you are affiliated. However, readersandrootworkers.org is not an open-source licensed site and you have not provided the required notices and links acknowledging Wikipedia as the original source for the copied material. (see WP:COPY).

For example, on the page List of Spiritualist Organizations, you claim "This List of Spiritualist Organizations was compiled and is maintained by catherine yronwode", but you do not acknowlege Wikipedia as the original source. From the article history, one can clearly see that the original article was not created by you, but rather by User:Lucyintheskywithdada on January 8, 2008. Your first edit to the article would appear to be on June 8, 2008. Therefore the article is not solely your own creation and you have plagiarized the work of others without providing the required acknowledgements.

The readersandrootworkers.org domain was not registered until February of 2009 and could not have been the original source of the article. By mid-February 2009, list of Spiritualist organizations had been edited by a number of registered Wikipedia users besides yourself, including User:Lucyintheskywithdada, User:Pegship, User:Rev Dan Kivel, User:Benjaminmaule, User:Chazzmania, User:Shabicht, User:Ableowned2, and User:Ntsimp. All these contributors have to be acknowledged one way or another on your site. The easiest way to do so is to provide a direct link to the version of the Wikipedia article which was copied along with the required licensing notices.

All copies of Wikipedia articles require that a notice be placed in the copy indicating the origin (Wikipedia) along with a link to the version of the article that was copied. See Reuser's rights and obligations. This credit is required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses under which you are allowed to copy works from Wikipedia to which others have contributed. Please place such acknowledgements and links on any and all copies you have made of Wikipedia articles.

In addition, the site readersandrootworkers.org does not appear to be licensed under either the CC-BY-SA or GFDL licenses. The open source licensing which allows you to copy Wikipedia content requires that all works derived from Wikipedia content also be licensed under the same terms as Wikipedia so that others may copy and modify your version of the work. If your site is not so licensed, you must include such a license on each page that derived any content from Wikipedia or you may not use Wikipedia-derived content on your site.

If this non-compliance with Wikipedia licensing requirements is not corrected, I will be reporting the violation to the WikiMedia Foundation and the owners of readersandrootworkers.com may receive notice that they must comply with the licensing requirements or take down all Wikipedia-derived material. This applies to every page on the site that has even a single sentence copied verbatim from Wikipedia.

Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually you are mistaken, but i understand your confusion. The material was not copied from Wikipedia. In fact, i donated material from my own list TO Wikipedia.

The list of Spiritualist Organizations formerly at Wikipedia, as well as the list currently at readersandrootworkers.org, derive from an out-of-copyright book called "Who's Who in Occultism, New Thought, Psychism, and Spiritualism: A Biography, Directory and Bibliography Combined in Distinctly Separate Sections" a.k.a. "Hartmann's Who's Who in Occult, Psychic and Spiritual Realms in the United States and Foreign Countries," written by William C. Hartmann and published by the Occult Press in 1927 -- hence the long list of "defunct" organizations it contains.

Portions of this book were apparently copied to Wikiedia by previous editors before i contributed to the page.

During the 1990s i transcribed Hartmann's list (by hand, before scanning!) and maintained my own electronic copy of this list on my hard drive. I updated my version of the list, adding URLs for contemporary organizations and also the names of defunct organizations that Hartmann had not listed.

When i found that Wikipedia had an updated version of Hartmann's list online, complete with the list of "Defunct Organizations" i was quite thrilled. It was amazing to me that Wikipedia would actually maintain such a useful aid to Spiritualist scholarship. In the interest of helping out Wikipedia -- and especially in the interest of heightening public awareness of the many African American contributions to the religion of Spiritualism -- i added numerous organizations to the Wikipedia list from my own hard-drive list, because the original 1927 compilation by Hartmann, coming after the expulsion of Black Spiritualists from the NSAC in 1922, and written during an era of extreme racial segregation amounting almost to apartheid, had completely ignored or overlooked them -- and so had the original Wikipedia editors who had apparently uploaded their own copies of Hartmann's list to Wikipedia and did their own research and expansion into web URLs for surviving organizations.

After i contributed entries from my own version of the list to Wikipedia, i continued to update and upgrade my version on my hard drive. In 2009, i uploaded my hard-drive version to the readersandrootworkers.org site.

The two pages -- Wikipedia's and mine -- have resembled one another and have also diverged quite a bit over the years.

For instance, my readersandrootworkers.org page maintains a sub-list of "regional and denominational directory sites of Spiritualist Churches." the Wikipedia page does not include this material.

In my role as the lead editor at readersandrootworkersorg i have consistently maintained my list at the readersaandrootworkers.org site, but i have not consistently maintained the list at the Wikipedia site, as that was a volunteer project. Occasionally i returned to the Wikipedia list to prune spam links and to add overlooked African American organizations, both contemporary and defunct, but i noticed that Wikipedia's version of the list continually degraded, so i felt that i was wasting my time there.

At one point, for instance, i noticed that a portion of Wikipedia's version of the list was no longer in alphabetical order, whereas Hartmann's original list, and therefore my list of the 1990s, have always been in alphabetical order.

At another time i noticed that links to non-qualifying sites had been added to the Wikipedia list (i.e. links to sites that were not "organizations" consisting of several churches, but rather were individual churches or single individuals). I eliminated these from Wikipedia's list as i had time or inclination to do so. Such non-qualifying sites were never part of the readersandrootworkers.org list, of course.

I did not recently do much to bring Wikipedia's version of the list up to conformance with my own list until last week -- and i did not even have time to finish that job: The list of defunct organizations at Wikipedia had inexplicably lost entries from the first portion of the alphabet and i intended to restore these when, almost immediately after my pass through the page, you deleted all the data anyway.

Over the years there have been numerous duplications of various states of the Wikipedia version of the Hartmann list, but the readersandrootworkers site is not one of those iterations -- in fact, the information has run in the opposite direction -- from my original research, from my delving into scholarly books on African American Spiritualism, and from my own list to Wikipedia's list, due to my efforts to help improve Wikipedia's list.

As far as i can determine, my readersandrootworkers.org version of the list has not been duplicated by other sites. A quick check would be to look for the "Colored Spiritualist Association of Churches" or the "Divine Spiritual Churches of the Southwest" or one of the other African American denominations that i added to Wikipedia the day before you deleted the page content. If a copying site does not contain those organizations, it was copied from Wikipedia, not from my site.

You are correct, by the way, that readersandrootworkers.org is not part of the Wikipedia copyright agreement group. It is a private wiki, using media wiki software.

Thank you for asking about this, and please, do not hesitate to ask me about other material that i have written elsewhere on the web or that i have written and donated to Wikipedia. I am always glad to be of assistance.

Cordially. catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book published in 1927 is probably still protected by copyright. Generally, only books published before 1923 are in the public domain. Also, even if the book is out of copyright, it's plagiarism to copy material from it without crediting the source, which you didn't do, either on Wikipedia or on your own site. Yworo (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the editors who created the site at WIkipedia did not credit Hartmann -- or even if they actually used Hartmann's lists of 1927 or did their own original research. My list is so filled with the results of my own original research and secondary research (particularly on the African American organizations and on the modern URL lists) that by the time i uploaded portions it to the web, i could not call it Hartmann's list anymore. He was only one of dozens of sources i consulted. I do think that the original Wikipedia list probably owes something to Hartmann's or to other lists that appeared in Spiritualist journals from 1910 onward, otherwise there would have been no list of "defunct" organizations. Whoever the editors were who created and added to that list at Wikipedia, they were probably Spiritualists who thought that they were helping Wikipedia. By the time i found the list, it was impossible for me to determine any of the sources used by the various Wikipedian editors. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you started with Hartmann's list, it's plagiarism not to acknowledge that. You don't have to call it Hartmann's list, you just have to acknowledge it as a source. It's your site though. Do what you want, but I've lost any respect for your intellectual honesty with this response. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem crediting Hartmann and i thank you for the suggestion; i will also credit the other sources in my library as well as google, where most of the recent URL-based information was acquired. Funny how WIkipedians never credit google... 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a search engine, not a source. As the content was not written by Google, there is no need to credit it. In the good ol' days, nobody would have suggested crediting the library's card-catalog! Would they? Yworo (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google, the source for the URLS in the list, is far more than a card catalogue; it is a proprietary system of information organization. A copyright notice appears on the entry page to the google site. However, with respect the copyrighting of Hartmann's list of Spiritualist organizations or other such lists of names and addresses, or google's ordered lists of URLS, this may prove of interest to you:

In 1991 the US Supreme Court decided in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that one phone-book company was allowed to engage in wholesale copying of another phone company's lists of names and numbers, because copyright is only meant to protect original creativity, not mere lists of facts. As someone writing for Wikipedia explained it: "The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.'" Thus, with respect to copyright, Hartmann's list of Spiritualist organizations is not protected by copyright. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, there's a difference between violating copyright and plagiarism. The latter is using the fruits of someone else's research without acknowledging it, pretending the work is solely one's own. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look Catherine, you are a fighter, I respect you for that. Clearly that user Yworo is mentally disrupted. Likely he/she is a teenager or, worst, he is mentally that age. The guy apparently is despaired to be an admin – God forbid. You already have read his disturbing talk page? That guy is crazy, furiously obsessed inside himself, he answers with rage anyone contradicting his likings. He must have suffered some child abuse and needs a hospice for an appropriated/psychological treatment. It is easy to realize he found out Wikipedia as a cave to hide and uses it, every guideline, suggestion or rule - when convenient to his fondness - as a mental support to his insanity. That guy is a dangerous person, evidently very, very emotionally instable and radical person in/out Wikipedia.

In my opinion, the rude and fanatic behavior of that lunatic person should be denounced for an arbitration. But, but, but, but, as you very well described in your user page, that kind of stupidity has company through Wikipedia.

Wikipedia shouldn’t be a shelter for unadjusted characters. And did I mention he is mentally sick? Oh forgive me if so, and very good luck to you. And remember, you know, there are others nice people like you inside Wikipedia. Smilingbird (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Smilingbird. I appreciate the support. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a final warning on Smilingbird's talk page for the attack above. IMO it would have been more appropriate for you Catherine to ask him/her to desist from this kind of "support", rather than welcoming it. Such diatribes do nothing to improve the atmosphere here and indeed only contribute to the battlefield mentality which, like you, I abhor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In December 212 the page User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon was deleted as "Abandoned userfied article, editor hasn't edited for 18 months." Actually i log in very frequently. I know that to you i am "just andother red shirt" but i have made it clear that most, if not all, of my editing is done from my IP address, and i have actually given detailed written explanations as to why i chose this method of work.

In short, i have chosen to function as what in the retail world is called a "mystery shopper," a term that refers to a supposedly "random customer" who samples the customer service skills of the store. In Wikipedia terms, i am the "random editor" who contributes data in areas of personal interest and expertise. I note how many times my work is reverted by bots, unjustly. I note how many times i receive dire warning texts for simply adding a sentence to an article on a well-known and easily-researched topic. I am happy to say that the number of unpleasant personal encounters -- unwarranted rudeness to an unknown IP editor -- has decreased greatly over the past few years, but the bot problem remains.

My former IP was 64.142.90.33

My current IP is 70.36.137.192

I have had other IP addresses as well -- this is up to my isp, of course.

As far as i know, there is no time-limit on username log-ins at Wikipedia as there once was at Dmoz, where i also edited for many years. If there is, and you would like to advise me of the time-frame, i will cheerfully comply and log in promptly in my name and make a courtesy-edit within any time-frime you or your superior officers desire or require -- be it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.

On the whole, however, i prefer to contribute to Wikipedia as an IP rather than as a username -- it is quicker and more convenient than logging in (i can edit on the fly while on my job, which is writing books) and i enjoy the variety of responses to the IP-editor.

So can i please have my Carroll Runyon page back again? It is not "abandoned." It was actually the casualty of an anti-occultism deletionist edit-war of long ago, and i have hopes to reinstate it. The subject of the biography is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, in my opinion.

Cordially,

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi cat - no problems with timelimits on accounts. But June 2 2009, your last edit with a 64. IP address, is a long time ago, almost four years, so it does certainly seem abandoned. And worse, it has no sources at all. How about starting a short version in your userspace (with the userdraft template please, that was missing from the deleted version so it was showing up on Google) adding some references to show notability? That would both show that you really are working on it and make it more likely it can be restored to Wikipedia. I'm not the one who deleted it and I'm loathe to restore it as it is now. Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, Yes, indeed, my last edit with the "Ol 64" IP (64.142.90.33 ) was four years ago. My isp changed my IP when i signed on for a DSL account with them. I have been using the IP 70.36.137.192 since then and clearly stated that in my letter above. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.36.137.192 and you will see that i edit here often and that you made an error by checking the wrong IP.

Additionally, you have created a Catch-22. You say that i can have the Carroll Runyon page back if i start to edit and source it, but since the page is being held as unavailable, i can't edit it or source it since i don't know what information it contains. cat 70.36.137.192 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a compromise suggestion Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fumata nera and fumata bianca is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fumata nera and fumata bianca until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- KTC (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit SPI archives, only clerks and Checkusers should do that, per standard procedure at WP:SPI. If you want to introduce new evidence, you need to file a new report, which will be added to the archive in time. You can do so at WP:SPI. Adding to the archive will not reopen the case, only a new report will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I might also note that two different CheckUsers already ran a checkuser process for sleeper accounts before it was archived and found nothing. If you read the archive itself, it has that information near the bottom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have re-posted the evidence here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up

Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "Child Pornography is to Wikipedia as Child Sex Abuse is to the Catholic Church" <-- I want to know what you mean by this, please don't delete my question. 76.105.194.160 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up at google. Use these keywords: < "Wikipedia" "child pornography" > and ignore the articles IN Wikipedia. Instead, read the articles from 2008 and 2010 mentioning Wikipedia.

Headlines like this is what you are looking for:

• Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist
• Wikipedia falls foul of British censors over alleged child pornography
• Brits blocked from Wikipedia over child porn photo
• Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography
• Wikipedia embroiled in child pornography allegations
• Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action
• Child Pornography at the Center of Intra-Wikipedia Warfare
• Wikipedia founder reports Wikimedia Commons to the FBI for child pornography
• Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI
• FBI Investigates Wikipedia on Child Porn Laws
• Jimmy Wales denies FBI investigation of underage photos on Wikipedia
• Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights
• Wikinews suppressed Wikipedia pornography investigation

Content like this is what you are looking for:

• "Last week, administrators of Wikimedia Commons, a media file store widely used for Wikipedia articles, deleted hundreds of images." (BBC)
• "Mr Wales had earlier posted his support for the removal of "images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests", deleting many pictures himself." (BBC)
• "After a complaint from Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger to the FBI that the Web encyclopedia site was "knowingly distributing child pornography," the site's other co-founder Jimmy Wales deleted images without consultation, angering many of the site's contributors, BBC News reported Monday." (UPI)

Do the research. It is a topic that dates back from 2008 - 2010 and has never been entirely resolved. The mass deletion of images by Jimbo Wales was not in any way an admission of complicity or guilt, nor was it an apology, nor was it a long-term solution to the problem. It was just a way of shoveling the stuff for which Wikipedia got caught out the door. Like the Catholic Church's moving of pederast priests around from diocese to diocese, the editors who were banned over the uploading of child pornography to WIkipedia were able to come back again with new isps and do it all over again. Why? Because of anonymity. Wikipedia's policy of anonymity protects criminals.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-27/In_the_media

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catherine: I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Wikipedia with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. My sole interest is to create a detailed article for this late entertainer so that fans or anyone who wants to learn about her can do so. I did a lot of research on Andrews and wish to share the information I have through the article. I have the greatest respect for the late Andrews and would never libel or create lies or tarnish her reputation in any way or to create an untrue persona of her. I hope you can chime in and make some sense so that the edit disputes can end. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI, Lightspeedx is currently Canvassing [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], because their previous Forumshopping didn't give them the results they desired. Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? Please go find something else to obsess about. Andrews or I am not worth your time. You may think we are, but I can assure you, we're not. Lightspeedx (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lightspeedx. I will check out the article and its edit history and see if i can do anything to improve it; hopefully sooner rather than later. Coffeepusher, obviously Lightspeedx found me because i volunteered for the Qworty clean-up and have been working on that project. This is not "canvassing" as i understand the term. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cf. http://www.yronwode.com/catherine.html near the signature for a voice file that you can use. Thanks!Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly; apologies for the late response - I thought I'd replied earlier, but it seems not. That page says "copyright © 1995-2009 catherine yronwode. All rights reserved." Please can you confirm that the voice file is under an open licence, such as CC-by or CC-by_SA 3.0? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now i must aologize! I have been editing unlogged in (faster for me) and did not see your message until now. I would be glad to license the file, of course. Please tell me how to do so -- shall i simply create a text addendum under it explaining that "this voice file is under available an open licence, such as CC-by or CC-by_SA 3.0" -- or is confirming it here sufficient? In any case, sorry for the delay! Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the Zakheim page! LuisVilla (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome; Bernard Zakheim was a family friend. 142.254.3.38 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Meaghan Oppenheimer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be offended 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a BLP needs at least one reference to a reliable source, before a BLPPROD tag can be removed. Please note that IMDb is NOT a reliable source. Snarky comments about a "no-ref robot" really don't help much, although I have a thick skin and really couldn't care less. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i was not being "snarky." I actually thought you were a bot. If you knew me, you would know i don't make jokes. I had to go to work and could not finish the project until i came home, hence the delay. There are now 15 refs to the BLP, including Variety Magazine, The Tulsa World newspaper, Getty Images, and others. I would appreciate it if you would now remove the tag. Thanks. Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Mercy Fontenot Peters, Catherineyronwode!

Wikipedia editor Innisfree987 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi and thanks for your entry! For the time being, I have redirected it to the band's page; as a general rule, we don't make standalone biographies for artists known for a single project, instead describing them on that project's page. The main exception is that if there's so much good secondary sourcing that the summary expands beyond what the project's page can accommodate and requires a content fork, but right now the prose on the GTOs page is pretty short, so you could definitely expand that with more bio info.

Meanwhile, just for the next time a content fork is required and you want to use material from another entry to start a new one, I'd suggest having a read of WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia to make sure you've attributed any re-used material properly.

Hope that's all helpful! Happy editing.

To reply, leave a comment on Innisfree987's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Innisfree987 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Draja Mickaharic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This man is a minor author and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG. The only source in the article is a short fiction book written by someone who knew him and a WP:BEFORE search I did turned up no other information on the man except where you can buy some of his books. For 13 years this article has had no actual sources and it is time it be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More deletion of occultism and folk magic -- as predicted and as noted. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anna Riva has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This woman was a minor author and merchant, and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are some mentions of her in one obscure book, a blog entry sourced from Wikipedia, a Social Security Death Index listing, and a dead link to an obscure website. A WP:BEFORE search I did turned up no other information on the woman that would demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL for people with unique careers - this article needs to be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More deletion of occultism and folk magic -- as predicted and as noted. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were once, long ago, the 'peace-maker' on this page. I have proposed a pagemove on the talkpage of that article, & I thought you might want to put in your 2 cents. I understand about wikibreaks and general frustration. I hope you are not gone for good. Thanks for all your contributions to wp. Not all anons are evil, or even mischievous, so I disagree about necessary id-verification, but know that your input is valued and needed, as you have the time to give. rags (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not worth your time. The fact that you hope for my presence as a "peace maker" on a simple ethnographic info-page clearly reinforces my conviction that Wikipedia is an app designed for gamers who enjoy shoot-em-ups against researchers and writers. Anonymity has facilitated the incivility that has killed Wikipedia. Publish your own research on your own web sites. Publish books. You can do it. Wikipedia does not deserve you. Good luck. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mildred Mann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More deletion of metaphysical pages. Mildred Mann (1904 - 1971) was a New Thought author. Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

on the "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis , you said: Note that i did not say "bio-weapon" or "conspiracy," just humdrum old lab leak

Just want to point out that you also didn't say "gain-of-function research". Gain of function research is the real scandal. Labs all over the world (including in the US, and even in Wuhan China funded by the US) are creating these virulent pathogens for experimentation purposes. This is how humdrum lab leaks turn into world wide virulent pandemics. And while nobody ever said "bio-weapon" about COVID19, departments of defense around the world are deeply interested in this research for defensive purposes, and sadly, for offensive purposes. This is all nothing new; what's new is the politicization and censorship. (see the history of Anthrax research, a non politicized bio weapon gain of function research topic)

And one final point while we are on the subject, every time you hear somebody say "there is no evidence for the lab leak", remind people that (a) there is also no evidence for the zoonotic virus hypothesis and (b) hypotheses NEVER need evidence, they are speculative explanations for what evidence there is. If you just repeat these phrases in every discussion of the topic, you'll do a lot to clean up wikipedia's insane WP:POV distortions of basic science and geopolitics. 108.185.102.135 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Catherineyronwode! Sorry to bother you, but I thought you should be informed of an insinuation that you are editing through the account of Skyerise. I very much doubt any response is called for, but in case your ears were burning this might be why: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is An attempted WP:OUTING by User:Bethsheba Ashe. Thank you. —Odysseus1479 08:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about. I have no connection to the account called Skyerise (formerly Yworo). I was completely unaware of the user Bethsheba Ashe before this message appeared on my talk page. My official account is as Catherineyronwode, and i often post unlogged-in. I have connected my half-dozen IP addresses to my primary account. My IP addresses have changed a few times over the past 17 years, but all originate in Forestville, California via ISPs in nearby Santa Rosa, California. In the past my husband and i were falsely accused of sockpuppeting one another, but this charge was dropped, because we are both public figures and can easily be found to have been living together for 25 years in one location with shared equipment. So, no, i am not a sockmaster for Bethsheba Ashe. I know very well who Skyerise is and i would never out said person, despite years of enduring false allegations on WP from this person, springing from a social conflict with said person's mother, more than a decade ago. -- Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you actively have a half dozen active IP addresses? 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you pay for each WAN address? If ao what are they? 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are strangely intrusive questions, especially from an unnamed entity whose only other contributions have been to the Liz Magill talk page at Talk:Liz_Magill, but i see no harm in making a civil reply. (1) Why do my husband and i maintain "a half dozen active IP addresses"? Because my husband administrates more than 80 web domains for our own use in business, for clients, for our hobbyist communities, and for a number of non-profit organizations. As i wrote above, "My IP addresses have changed a few times over the past 17 years, but all originate in Forestville, California via ISPs in nearby Santa Rosa, California." We have been online since the early 1990s, with many changes in IP addresses being simply due to having several changes in isps for ourselves and our clients over the past decades. (2) Do we pay for this? Yes, of course we pay for it. Paying for connectivity for ourselves and our clients is part of the cost of doing business. (3) What are they? They are IP addresses, as you yourself so astutely observed. At last count, there are more than 80 domains either under our own registered proprietorship or for which we function as admins and/or content providers for every type of enterprise from model railway enthusiasts to roofers. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Choctaw Bingo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian and Muskogee.

Disambiguated. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wedding Bells (Hank Williams song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buddy Williams.

Fixed. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your comment on the Liz Magill talk page is an admirable demonstration of a commitment to neutrality. Thank you. JSFarman (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all my years of editing Wikipedia, this is the first time anyone has given me a barnstar. I am touched, and i thank you. Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of individual dogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Higgins.

Fixed. Thanks. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis E. Eliasberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citizens National Bank.

Disambiguated. Thanks for the notification. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rudolf Breslauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alphen.

Disambiguated, and thanks for the notice, on 25 March 2024 (UTC) Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]