User:Scholarlyarticles/archive of sandbox

Please note. This is a current draft which I am editing. It is gibberish and is a silly edit. It is not to be submitted. It is not for citation or dissemination. It should not be edited by anyone else. I am not at this point ready to submit or committing to submit this anywhere. I'm only bringing up names as a marker and as a way being able to look at the page I'm editing to make sure they are done neatly, to NeilN's satisfaction. This is not a finished statement. This should not be read as a challenge of any of these people unless or until it is submitted.

Hi Thanks for responding, I was not referring to NeilN when I brought up the COIN. I was referring to the COIN mentioned by Dennis Brown, a mentor of mine, concerning a “COIN issue” mentioned here and here. I wasn't completely sure what that meant. I know Dennis is semi-retired and I preferred not to bug him. He said that this COIN was heating up. Only after I asked Dennis Brown to comment this time (around Feb 13th, 2014), did Template:NeilN allow people at the Jimmy Henchman talk page to get the benefit of being aware of the complaint made by 67.81.205.59, who said he was Jimmy Henchman’s agent. The user 67.81.205.59 changed the page here [[1]]. That's the diff I meant. I don't know how these COIN issues of 67.81.205.59 to which Dennis referred are resolved. This controversy has been ungoing since 2012 and a key edit warrior was RedPenofDoom who was tag-teaming with Diannaa in 2012, before it was resolved. He has now, as of January 23, 2014 decided with Template:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Template:NeilN to again attack the issues that were resolved in September of 2012. RedPenofDoom continues to edit even my sandbox (where I put a notice that it was a draft not for citation or dissemination) excluding a fact about the subject that Henchman has issued vioilent threats from jail [[2]] despite the fact that it's a well documented fact [[3]]

NeilN reverted my request [[4]] for the COIN issue person to come to the page and talk twice [[5]] [[6]] He did not inform anyone on the talk page of the COIN or any of the issues, the person with the conflict of interest raised. He and RedPenofDoom rather discussed it on his page notifying canvassing the people he prefers and gossiping about me here [[7]]

In the summer of 2012 plenty of people worked on this article before me. You just have to look at the history of the Jimmy Henchman article revision page.

There was a copyright problem made by someone else [[8]] [[9]], before I was ever on the page. The copyright issue had nothing to do with the Attack at the Quad which has been the reason for Diannaa's and RedPenofDoom's attack.

Editors tried to restore the substance of the article while taking out the copyright violation [[10]]. It's hard to tell from history who edited the various versions because at least two editors sandboxes were spammed.

The first serious blanking of the article came by Dianna here:[[11]] with a misleading edit summary. In the following section Diannaa reverted not only my work but the original copyright violation unwittingly restored by me: [[12]] Here Dianna again reverted the original copyright violation that I unwittingly reverted PLUS all the work of the previous editors. [[13]]. [[14]] Nouniquenames restored it [[15]] Here RedPenofDoom tries again to revert it [[16]]. One of the reasons given was that Jimmy Henchman aka Rosemond was misidentified as Richmond in an AP article. Henchman was only misidenfied in one place in the article. Then I tried to the interrupt the disruptive edits while adding a new citation [[17]] This is when Diannaa took out all everyone’s work saying blogs are not reliable sources [[18]], Dianna accused me of copyright violation, speculating offline about who she thought I was, I was told by several people. (she was wrong.) Then she decimated any article I had worked on, attacking them with misleading edit summaries. I reached out to someone on the Arbitration Committee who mentioned Dennis Brown. Dennis Brown reached back to me. The disruptive edits by Diannaa and RedPenofDoom were based on the Attack at the Quad issue that was resolved here: [[19]]. and on my talk page [[20]]. I've manually revealed all the discussions that took place on this top in the few weeks between August 31 and September 4.

Here is my final discussion with Dianna. Dennis resolved the sourcing question. I've never heard from her again.

Blogs are not considered reliable sources Hi, Scholarlyarticles. I see you are once again adding defamatory material based on a blog post with this edit [21]. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for defamatory material on this wiki. I have removed the content.-- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure which you're referring to but the Village Voice article has been around for about 30 years. I also added a huff po article to the same reference. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by - (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The one source, Village Voice, would likely be fine for sourcing. Even though it says "blog", all their articles are written blog style and are professionally vetted and written by professional journalists. Click on any article, and it takes you to the subdomain "blogs". While "blogs" in general are not acceptable, this is not a general blog and it is just using blog software for their online paper. http://www.villagevoice.com/about/index/ tells about it, founded in 1955, recipient of three Pulitzer prizes plus other awards, etc. Perfectly fine as a reliable source. I'm sure it is just the word "blog" that confuses it, but hopefully this clears it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. I have reverted my removal of the material. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks D and D. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)]]]

It's been a year and a half since the resolution of the Attack at the Quad Issue here at WP, Jimmy Henchman has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and has begun his new trial for murder. His WP is getting worse because he is no longer primarily known as a music mogul, not because of anything we're doing. I haven't worked on it much for a while except to try to protect it from continually being wiped out by numerous anonymous IP addresses. Before January 23, 2014 a number of editors have worked on his page to get it to where it was before 67.81.205.59 raised the complaint and changed the page [[22]]. His or her complaint is completely without substance or merit, making no substantive claim about WP sources except to blame his lawyer, the journalist involved, and Judge Gleeson.

Nevertheless, TheRedPenOfDoom now is now using it as a reason to tag-team with alf laylah wa laylah and NeilN. Some examples of the edit wars he's involved with have been with these people RedPenofDoom diff1 [[23]] RedPenofDoom diff2 [[24]] STATicVapors restoration [[25]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[26]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[27]] (note- he makes a misleading summary)

The trio have nearly continually threatened many including STATicVapor, [[28]] and others with blocks, intimidating us from editing every three sentences, disrupting our edits and even collapsing edits to hide them with with misleading edit summaries such as "more conspiracy theories" [[29]] thus censoring even the talk page. I asked RedPenofDoom why the three editors why they were complaining about the content of the Jimmy Henchman talk page where no one on the talk page could see it, why they did not inform us of the complaint of IP address 67.81.205.59. He said that is because we, the editors of the Jimmy Henchman page, had made an incompetent page over the last two years and we'd have to start from square one. In other words we'd have to start since before his edit-warring, tag-teaming with Diannaa. The trio of editors have advised us in no uncertain terms that we can make no changes without there approval or we will be blocked. RedPenofDoom simply reverts the material decided on in 2012

RedPenofDoom diff1 [[30]] RedPenofDoom diff2 [[31]] STATicVapors restoration [[32]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[33]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[34]] (note- he makes a misleading summary

I've made an attempt to restore it to the January 23, 2014 version. There is not a lively discussion. There is tag-teaming intimidation to try to re-litigate all the work that was done regarding the attack at the Quad and the crimes of which Henchman has been convicted. Also note STATicVapor's argument [[35]] Please note the exchange here:

I noticed you made this comment from RedPenofDoom: "Jimmy Henchman We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)" Is this code for let's censor the information from these editors? If so, I think such calls should be made here on the talk page. If there is a coordinated effort to undo the year and a half's worth of work by a number of editors by a few, it should be examined here. (I asked why there wasn't a call for eyes on the Jimmy Henchman talk page, where it was appropriate. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Red responded: "Why didnt I ask here for feedback? because ... Asking for feedback from the current article creators would be like asking a drowning person for swimming lessons."

Please his final note to me:

[[:::::The version that you prefer is NOT going to happen because it is is major violation of a number of policies and guidelines particularly WP:BLP.

How it got from your preferred but completely non compliant version to the one today is explained in the edit summaries.

The article is certainly in need of improvement, but it will need to be fixed one step at a time with appropriately reliably published sources used to present appropriate content in an appropriate manner.

Suggestions for large scale non compliant edits are going to be dismissed outright.

I suggest you start small with sentence or at most paragraph revisions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)]]

My question is: Where on Wikipedia was it decided that RedPenofDoom whose argument for excluding the VV source on Henchman's confession, the Dexter Isaac AHH confession etc, and his team of three should be the judge and jury of this page for all the arguments that were resolved before? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have discussed the situation with another editor just as a way acknowledging what seemed to be his frustration [[36]] with the tag-teaming. Since you three are following that thread, as well as everything I write, it didn't seem to require notification. I feel that the canvassing between you three for a block of me and asking each other whether you would certify without notifying me [[37]] [[38]] is not appropriate. You seem to be collecting votes already before it is even submitted. Did I misunderstand?

Get a blog somewhere else [[39]]

Chris Christie

Traffic jam was here [[40]] heated COI here and here Did he collaborate [[41]]title=User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah&action=edit&section=18]] [[42]] Chris Christie who is this person? [[43]] Who is this person? [[44]] collaboration ? [[45]] [[46]]