User talk:CaroleHenson

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 17 as User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 16 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Welcome to CaroleHenson's talk page

Articles - Working on - DYK - Recognition - User info
"Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple," Dr. Seuss

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Reshma Thomas

Hi Carol, if you still have an interest in improving art-related articles upon your return, could you perhaps take a look at Reshma Thomas? Thanks, and hope you are enjoying the break. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Obviously, I was on a looonnnggg break. I made a couple of minor tweaks to the article. Are you interested in my seeing if I could expand the article? Other? I hope all is well in your corner of the world... and the wiki world.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ealdgyth I hope you had a lovely holiday and a great 2020, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

CaroleHenson,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Northamerica1000. I hope you have a wonderful 2020, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back in action, Carole Henson. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde93. It is nice to be back. I hope all is well with you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Nice working with you at Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! That was very nice of you! Nice to work with you, too, 7&6=thirteen!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Reasonable editor! I too am dismayed that this lake has gotten so much attention. I am also dumbstruck by the nominator's continued erasures. Initially I worked on the article and the nominator erased my work. Next 7&6=13 worked hard on the article and the nominator erased his work. Then !voted twice. I appreciate your efforts and did not mean to undo any of your work. Was just undoing all the nominator's erasures of 7&6 work. Lightburst (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't remove my work, Lightburst. You returned it. I'll clean-up the overuse of citations and leave the best... and there seems to be a discrepancy on acreage.

Thank you for your efforts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minor discrepancy- 92-97. Maybe drought and rain. I think we just pick one. The main thing is that this nominator needs to back off and let the process happen. Not comment after each Keep !vote and destroy the article. Take a look at the template I updated - the other lakes in Brown county are larger and more stubby. Lightburst (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 97 acres came from a Realty site. I would not consider that a reliable source. It would have helped if they identified the source.

Lightburst, I am not sure where the 92 acres comes from that is on the List of Lakes page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Please leave it be. There is enough obsessing about this article. Refactor it when this thing closes. You do not favor keeping the article so erasing other improvements is not app. It is too hot now to keep erasing the work. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightburst There were legitimate reasons for the changes. My intention was to try to make the article BETTER. Use of unreliable sources, having failed verification issues, and use of multiple edits with the same info vs. the latest edition is not right. Why would you support that? I was trying to improve on the edits that Doncram made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps later? It is pretty hot right now. Too many misgivings about intentions. 7&6 is a competent editor. I am sure we can edit this article later, but for now it is a constant reactions of WTH is happening there now? Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in this nonsense. I changed my vote to Delete if the version remains with all the breaches of WP guidelines. I don't understand your question... or is it a question? I am not. I did my best and am quite disappointed that it was taken as an attempt to gut the article. I made changes with discussion on talk page and did it with only the best of intentions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saddens me. I see that you are a good editor. And so is 7&6. I did not want to see either of you get in trouble over this small lake. It is just all heated up there, and 7&6 is doing his best, and you are as well. But for now, I was just saying lets let it cool off. Not because you are wrong, but because cooler heads will prevail with a bit of time. I hope you reconsider your !vote and not do this out of frustration over my comments here. I hope we work together on the project! Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Yep, I am hoping so, too. I had thought I was a cooler head until this morning (the past hour, don't know what time zone / side of the world you are on.

I don't have an intention to edit the article any longer, and know that there is zero intention to hear what I said, so I will leave my ivote the way it is. But, in the whole scheme of things, I don't know that one person's vote will change the outcome.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercifully I see that the AfD mercifully ended ...three separate times. lol I appreciate your work. I am very happy that nobody got in trouble over the AfD. I hope to work with you on your proposed changes or other encyclopedia projects. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Lightburst and thanks. It seemed to quietly slip into the night... and so far the edits to the article and communication seems pretty calm. My next step is to work on an RfC for Lakes notability, but I want to give the discussion continue a bit more to ensure that it's a pretty good sense of where people stand.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I se the nominator still won't let it go. He just slapped a template on the article which I reverted. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw their comment on the article talk page before I posted this, Lightburst. I am wondering why you didn't respond to the talk page. In general, I thought that if someone adds a tag, and explains it thoroughly on the talk page, that people don't remove it until the issue is resolved. I saw that you reverted their edit after I read your message here.

It is so nice having interaction about Bachelors Lake become calm and seem less divided. I would hate to see things backtrack.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have not assumed good faith lately because they kept filleting the article. Also they did not care about the first consensus close and redirected the article to favor the minority. Now templating the article is just another effort to portray the article as wrong headed. My opinion is there are 6 million articles and lots to do on here, I hope the editor can move on soon. I stayed off Wikipedia for a couple days so I could stay out of the article. Came back to see that it was closed again, reopened again, and then more discussion was elsewhere on the encyclopedia. You do good work, so this message was not about you. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said I did, too, Lightburst. And, my edits addressed the same issue when I redid Doncram's edits. My edits have been mass reverted and i don't want to engage in an edit war, so I have backed off.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to take a few more days off. I won"t get blocked over the lake. I do not associate Doncram's methods with yours. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Occupational stress, you may be blocked from editing. –Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightningstrikers Would you please point out how this isn't more than your unhappiness with being tagged with warnings by me and other users when you are NOT engaging in productive conversation. And are NOT so far coming up with sources. When you come up with sources to support your position you will be taken more seriously.

Please see [1], [2], [3]–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to answer direct questions to help resolve the issue. You delete edits when we are in the middle of us trying to discuss the issue and find a resolution. I am findinbg sources and stated that but you persisted. Disruptive editing. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are gaining a reputation for lying about what I have done or not done... and have promised sources and not delivered, pardon my believing that this is just one more in a long line of deflection.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the liar. Just don't delete the edit while sources are being found. Follow guidelines and policy. Answer direct questions from editors to resolve the issue. Not hard. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your points have been addressed at the dispute. I have explained where you have lied. Please provide one diff where you can quote me lying. I already provide the info on how to create a diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningstrikers: WP:DTR because there are better ways. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have very sound justification for putting the warning here. Sorry but your editing is extremely disruptive. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can we all agree not to revert while we just try and discuss this? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also am sorry for calling you a liar. It was not acceptable. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]