User talk:CarolSpears: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:19, 3 July 2008

a citation call

I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.

My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.

If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.

The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Wikipedia MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it. Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them. It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs. What area are you at? I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from. The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child. I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.

I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts. When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also. Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.

Rkitko, are we playing pokemon? -- carol (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fond of that game. I watched the 'toon and I was disappointed in a message for children to send a small creature with one or two special powers to fight battles for them. In reviewing the 'toons I watched when I was a kid, they were mostly sexist and racist -- things that can be gotten over. But using little imaginary creatures to fight battles with -- it is a terrible message about what growing up should be like. Especially if you would like to enjoy life as a grown up. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? (restored to address issue still hanging)

Please continue this where ever it was that it was started. Thank you all for your time, consideration and opinions. When you would like my opinion, feel free to ask it here. -- carol (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dichelostemma congestum

It is not necessary to leave unconfirmed information in an article for it to be checked, particularly by an editor who needs to have the information confirmed by someone else first. You simply contact your mentor with your suggested changes to the article along with your sources and wait until they get time to verify its accuracy. Your taxonomic information in Liabeae was so far off of what the article actually said that it is not advisable for you to edit prior to checking with someone knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. Leave the information out until it can be verified by someone, probably after everyone gets done editing the hundreds of problematic articles and sections you've already created. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who confirm things are not required to confirm them so quickly. They must be there to be confirmed. You must perhaps start to write your own articles or live your own life. I have no idea how you became so attached to my articles and my editing and I am sorry about this. The fact that many of the plant articles sit there unchallenged, unreferenced and unchecked is a fact. Leave the pages there until they can be checked. Write some articles. Thank you for finally asking my opinion, by the way. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are so attached to your editing, because they have identified that your editing is problematic. Please will you, once and for all, accept that Wikipedia has policies which we must all follow. The policy here is that content must be verifiable, and properly sourced. It isn't that you can add any old rubbish, and that it can stay there until somebody has confirmed it to be true, or found it to be false. The content does NOT have to be there to be verified. If you don't want to work with a mentor, the only option open to you is to note your proposed additions on the article talk page, rather than adding them directly to the article.

You need to understand that people have been very patient with you, but that the patience is not limitless, and that you have all but exhausted that patience.

If you continue to edit in the same vein as hitherto, which involves other editors spending huge amounts of time fixing your errors, and refusing to engage with people who are trying to help you become a productive editor, a ban from Wikipedia is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, the information can be found in the page history, or by your giving it to your mentor, or you can create a subpage to put the information on. Here, I'll create one for you as an example. User talk:CarolSpears/Dichelostemma congestum You can title it something else, or create others as needed, or create your own personal working sandbox for you and your mentor.

Carol, they're not your articles or my articles. They're Wikiepdia articles. No need to tell me to live my own life as a comment of this nature may be construed as a personal attack.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Mayalld does offer a usable alternative: proposing changes on the article's talk page. However, for this you must stick with the proposed changes, and try not to stray into the abstract or off topic. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumex patientia

The picture your are using on this page is incorrect, since you appear to not know what this species looks like, try a google image search for this species. Hardyplants (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is from wikisource and the original publication of the species. I am not certain what to do in this case. Google should not be as reliable as the original publication that everyone cites for the species? -- carol (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am not correct in this. Sorry and fixing it.... -- carol (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to stub type species and images I dig out of original scans; occassionally I get a few things inaccurate in between doing this. I am also, having problems with what would probably be called stalking in any real environment; a problem which does not improve my accuracy. Thank you for the review and the pointer. -- carol (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the same mistake too, especially since I do not have all my images labeled formally with the taxon name - I always try to check my images against other sources to make sure they are correct. Google images can be very useful for common species, and not helpful for species that are "rare" Hardyplants (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have reluctantly placed an indefinite block on editing from this account, following ongoing community concern about your manner of contributing to Wikipedia. While you have made some positive contributions, and are clearly keen to help build our encyclopaedia, you have shown little sign that you understand the problems you are continuing to cause - problems that have required many hours to rectify by editors whose time would have been better spent on other things. You have not responded in the hoped-for way to constructive advice and offers of help, and I see no likelihood that this will change.

Please note that an indefinite block does not imply a permanent block, it just means the block has no set expiry date. You may still request unblocking (you can edit this talk page or paste the template {{unblock|your reason here}} below, substituting in your reason), although I would suggest that you will need to be especially convincing in persuading the community that you have grasped the seriousness of the situation, and can comply with any conditions required should you return.

EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this coming, Carol; I don't watch the drama boards much.

I don't think I can do anything for you at the moment. maybe throw yourself into Commons etc for a while, and revisit this in a month or so.

Hesperian 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is by people who write theatre articles. It is preventing me from working with people who write plant articles. The votes are from unreal people who did not exist before Thanksgiving 2007. I know musical comedy. The people involved with that are not as ignoranat, oppressive and illogical as they are being presented here. In a month, will all of the plant articles have cited sources? And what is the deal with Featured Pictures and Featured Articles? There is a deal because it is there that the expectations and the demands that are not reflected back are made. -- carol (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please count the number of people who voted for this and compare it to the number of people who actually edit. And don't live in a world where the nagging people always win. Please.... -- carol (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the plant articles, not just mine. All of the people who write articles, not just me. In a month will all of the articles be as non-plagiaristic and with actual citations as mine are required to be? And how will the new definitions of what is considered to be stalking and not be used? -- carol (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said my piece.[1] As you know I am not at liberty to unblock you against consensus. We'll just have to wait and see. Hesperian 12:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CarolSpears (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The best way to handle stalkers is to block them. Then they can stalk without interfering. This system has blocked the person who was being stalked. I suggest that the stalkers will find another soon enough, but if they are blocked, then they can stalk in the peace of not being able to do anything but that. -- carol (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

reason — Carol, you have completely failed to address the reason why you were blocked. You were blocked for failing to respond to your request for comment, other than to call it "feces" [2]. You were blocked for failing to listen to any of the concerns raised during it; you refused to consider a mentor [3], instead continuing to act in a problematic way. [4] [5] [6]. You copy and paste information that is not only plagiarised, but also inaccurate. Fixing the messes you make takes up far more time then you spend making them. Until you realise this, and change your ways to stop making such messes in the first place, your block will remain. Neıl 龱 12:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note Sarah also refused to unblock you ([7]) - I've left my message on as it's more detailed. Neıl 龱 12:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never spoken with Sarah nor seen her edits and that user has never asked my opinion about anything. Other users provided other words that did rhyme with species and were not that word -- a word that I never typed. To have to learn how to use a system that is in place to block people from editing who are not really having a problem is very different from learning how to use a system to edit a page which is what the purpose of the instance of the software is. I vote that everyone puts down their blocking tools and attempts to write an article -- let Sarah know that I care as much about her opinion as she has asked for mine. -- carol (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to have spoken to me - you posted an unblock request and as a passing administrator, I responded to it. If you're not interested in having an admin respond to your request then don't waste our time by making it in the first place. Sarah 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to tell Neil that everything I said still seems to be sticking -- carol (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And still you concern yourself with trying to be clever and win arguments. You may not have typed the word, but you pointedly failed to contradict those who interpreted your comment as such. If you meant something else by your comment, now is the time to explain.

You have repeatedly complained of being stalked. What do you think other editors should do? Say "oh yes, we know that Carol adds incorrect info to articles continuously, but it isn't fair to use that information to track down potentially problematic edits.

Your block is very much about your continued refusal to engage with other editors, and your refusal to work within the same framework of verifiability as others. It has been pointed out to you on many occasions that you need to work with other people, but you just keep demanding that other people leave you to do as you please.

You are, I am afraid, the architect of your own downfall. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed, Carol. I ask that you respond to your RFC, and this is what happens? Block endorsed. Blueboy 96 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senecioneae

I've reverted these edits, per discussion here, the RFC, and AN/I. Carol, your argument appears to be that the edits are needed because the article was wrong. As you appear to be one of the primary editors on the article, I have added this article to the RFC talk page, and one of the plant editors will get around to checking the article and your potential additional edits. --Blechnic (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 == Blocked ==
-[[Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - tab. 10-renewed.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Carol's most recent image restoration]]
+[[Image:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - tab. 10-renewed.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Carol's most recent image restoration]]
 I have reluctantly placed an indefinite block on editing from this account, following ongoing community concern about your manner of contributing to Wikipedia. While you have made some positive contributions, and are clearly keen to help build our encyclopaedia, you have shown little sign that you understand the problems you are continuing to cause - problems that have required many hours to rectify by editors whose time would have been better spent on other things. You have not responded in the hoped-for way to constructive advice and offers of help, and I see no likelihood that this will change.