User talk:CarolSpears/archive-03

Archiving

All this discussion has made your talkpage really really huge... my browser is coughing and spluttering as I write this! Might need to do an aggressive cut-and-paste to an archive page before it gets any worse. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call! I left that one because I think it has relevancy to the project. -- carol (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That thread was started because I did not like pointing to articles that I could only see the abstracts of. Later, I saw abstracts for species which had been miss-spelled in one of the botany name databases.... -- carol (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the archive is still visible if anybody needs to see the old threads, and if there is new discussion they can always start a new topic here. I should do some archiving of my own, actually... --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly helpful when you archive currently active discussions. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was maybe a bit too aggressive. :-) I think these ones were touched in the last day or two, so they probably count as the "current" discussions (it's hard to know where to draw the line on occasion): "A request", "Universal Register Machine", "Dud links for insects", "plagiarism". --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have continued discussions in archives before. If there are any which are good enough to keep up with, let me know. -- carol (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC and other impressive initials

I do not want to interrupt that -- I just wanted to tell you that while I was blocked, watching my article which was in the history of a redirection be tagged for deletion was a horrible experience. You tagged it -- or that is what appeared to happen from my blocked view of things.

The best discussion of this that I had can be found here. And I would like to mention that the last few things I did before I was blocked was to work on that ficus article.

Good luck fitting articles into contest requirements; I should be curious to know if after it is over with, if you think that kind of thing makes for good articles for the subject or not. -- carol (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What article do you mean? The discussion you've pointed ne to mentions no article by name that has been deleted, and I have almost never tagged anything for deletion. I think there may have been one several months ago, but that can't be the one you mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matricaria‎ recutita. -- carol (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never edited that page, and haven't even participated in the WP:PLANTS discussion about it. So, what leads you to think I had any involvement with this article? As far as I can tell, all I ever did was to assess the article [1] for WP:PLANTS as being off to a good start and being of moderate importance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In my watch list it said you flagged it for deletion. That article which was flagged has since been deleted as well as the talk page and the history of you flagging it for deletion. The only proof I have of this is that edits to articles I have been working on by you are important enough for me to remember. At this point, it is up to you to believe in the integrity of this proof or not. -- carol (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this thread is becoming illogically nested.

Huh? I asked you what article it was that had been tagged for deletion. You said Matricaria‎ recutita. Now you are saying it was another article that you meant, and this so far unnamed article was deleted. I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me the name of that article, I have no way of knowing whether you are correct, or even what you are talking about. If you can tell me the name of the article you are upset over, then please do. Otherwise, this conversation is just wasting my time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When I started, there were two pages involved: the article German Chamomile and a redirection page Matricaria recutita. I don't link to those now because the articles I was working on do not exist in those namespaces now. I made an article out of what had been a redirection page for Matricaria recutita, as typical of most of my stub articles, there were more references than text, but that was expanded more than several of my stub class articles because I had intended to convert German Chamomile into a food and herb article. The article was reverted back to being a redirection page. I re-edited it back into being an article with not as many copyright violations as the redirection page pointed at. The musical comedy people with the claims of copyright violation and plagiarism had me blocked for replacing the text after the reversion (I did not revert via 'undo' ever, btw). While I was blocked and the article buried in the history and the page looking like a redirection page -- it was flagged for deletion and deleted and the article which is mostly about the food and tea and history called German Chamomile (in my opinion) was moved into that namespace. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Rosinweed_to_Silphium_.28genus.29 is where I mentioned that I looked at the history of the redirection page before I requested that it be deleted -- due to the suffering I experienced while watching my plant article be deleted so a herbal tea article could take its place in the species namespace. I like musical comedy, I just prefer to see it in a real theatre and if I am to be a participant in it, I would prefer to be paid for this and agree to it.

Don't let them make you into Arthur Dent either.... -- carol (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to know who deleted an article, you can go to the deletion log, type in the article title, and hit go.[2] Was that an error? Hesperian 03:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

EP marked it for deletion. You deleted it. As I have written on a different talk page, it is an interesting move because now on a different page, there are a lot of allegations of plagiarism which point to a page which I had very little authoring of. -- carol (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators have the ability to view deleted revisions. As there is nothing confidential in the article history, I will post it here for your perusal:

• 06:22, 21 June 2008 . . Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Reverted edits by CarolSpears (talk) to last version by Shoemaker's Holiday)
• 06:11, 21 June 2008 . . CarolSpears (Talk | contribs | block) (9,642 bytes) (restored and interwiki links added until copyright problems are fixed with the redirection page and a chance is found to repair these)
• 13:58, 20 June 2008 . . Shoemaker's Holiday (Talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Undid revision 220500712 by CarolSpears (talk) Per WP:COPYVIO)
• 13:22, 20 June 2008 . . CarolSpears (Talk | contribs | block) (9,530 bytes) (if you cannot fix it yourself, you should be able to wait until there is a lawsuit or until the abled people can get to it.)
• 13:08, 20 June 2008 . . Shoemaker's Holiday (Talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Undid revision 219603386 by CarolSpears (talk) Undo. MAJOR copyvio)
• 10:15, 16 June 2008 . . CarolSpears (Talk | contribs | block) (9,530 bytes) (expanded)
• 23:47, 11 June 2005 . . JoJan (Talk | contribs | block) (link)
• 11:52, 13 May 2004 . . Fuelbottle (Talk | contribs | block) (new redirect)

Hesperian 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was probably Plant Project template to what used to be the article German Chamomile. I managed to convert this edit into what seemed to me to be a Plant Project effort to delete a mostly good article which had been buried. -- carol (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment

Please leave me alone. You are violating WP:HARASS. I have asked you politely more than once, but you continue to post "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts". If you persist, I will have to take this case to WP:ANI. Please stop now and post nothing else on my talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to read that WP:THING -- mostly because the perception of this is wrong. The simple questions of "do you remember the first exchange" and "does that mean that your edits are not to stand out to me in a watchlist edit summary" are not actually any grounds for harrassment, regardless of how well that document has been written. I will honor your request to not leave messages on your talk page, but perhaps you could put a little message that has everyone except: and put the list here or the one name if that is all that is on that list there. To help me to remember since I will not remember an offensive situation. -- carol (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hello there, Carol ... I just happened to notice that you haven't participated in your RfC as of yet, though you have still continued to edit. Considering the seriousness of what you did earlier and the fact it nearly got you banned, you should at least try to engage the community regarding this issue. Blueboy96 13:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd earlier advised her to take some time to think about it before responding. There's probably been enough time by now, though. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Does "incivility" mean that your browser crashed before being able to respond? -- carol (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to your reply earlier, Carol. Please go to the "Response" section of the RfC and write your concerns in there, overwriting the "{Add summary here...}" part. Then sign ~~~~ as usual beside the hash-mark ("#") at the bottom of the section. (this should be a direct link to edit that section) Remember, no snarking! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Too late. I asked my question and now I am listing the articles that I author and/or touch on the talk page. Not a whole lot of snark though. -- carol (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not certain about the graph theory though.... -- carol (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [3] --Blechnic (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I am not attacking, I am responding. I answered the call to not plagiarize and now my not plagiarized text is being removed. If I were following your edits and removing text and giving conflicting instructions on how to do things correctly, I suspect that this could be considered an attack, but since I am not doing that, the attack is where? -- carol (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that text is not plagiarized doesn't mean that it has an automatic right to remain in the article, and I have to agree that welcoming the fact that somebody is retiring in the way that you did is at the very least WP:BITEy, and could very well be taken as a personal attack.

You really need to modify the way that you interact with your fellow editors. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is weird this situation with Liabeae because it is now a plant project editor who is being reviewed (the article was checked earlier today) and while I understand that I am new to botany and to the writing of articles scientifically, the "attack" is on others who have experience and I have respect for.

That statement is factually incorrect. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which part of it? -- carol (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1)Who do you think checked it (and agreed that it was correct)? A)Who do you think is being "attacked"? i)Who do you have respect for? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1)You wrote elsewhere that it was simply spellchecked by you after I wrote this. Before I wrote this, they were removing text. A)Removing my text that wasn't looked at by anyone in the project is to me different than removing text that was looked at by someone in the project. i)List of cryptids is kind of cool.... -- carol (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what else happened today? I saw a movie that I was plagiarized in, and I have to say that I am really impressed that they are able to get stuff out of that old stale stuff. -- carol (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from this exchange and the text that I had to remove from Liabeae that you, Carol Spears, do not understand or read in plant taxonomy well enough to be including any plant taxonomy information in articles. Please cease doing so. This is an encyclopedia, also, not your private playground. If you're unwilling to discuss the issues, don't, but no don't abuse Wikipedia space for your private word games. Please cease including taxonomic information in articles, please cease with the word games--the first are not accurate enough for Wikipedia, and the second are off topic. --Blechnic (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

?

For when 'post' is giving you a hard time. - Privatemusings (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Carol, why "What rhymes with species?" And what does rhyme with it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt: several people have put their heads together and the only thing we can think of is feces. We'd like to suppose you had something better in mind; if we're mistaken please tell us what you meant. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry because my brain stopped with that word also and I thought that the great minds of wikipedia could help me to figure out another word. -- carol (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitsubishis, or Yoshimis might do it too? - the later apparently "concerns a diverse array of subject matter, mostly deeply melancholy ponderings about love, mortality, artificial emotion, pacifism, and deception" - or p'raps carol was just saying 'shit' in a wordy way? I dunno! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I spent yesterday trying to rhyme things with post and it didn't go so well. Now this species problem.... -- carol (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice image, but does "another brick in the wall" really rhyme with "post"? -- carol (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol, a user conduct request for comment is a serious matter. Posting riddles that end in feces is an unacceptable way to respond. Your post here doesn't nearly go far enough. You bear the responsibility for using sources appropriately, and if you are unsure what is appropriate you need to slow down and consult with your mentor in advance of posting. What we expect you to do is to learn what the appropriate standards are and to assist in setting right the material you've already worked on. Durova^Charge! 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings came up with words that don't end that way. I had a problem because the only word I could think of is the one you wrote here. I considered this to be a problem as well and one that could be dealt with by people whose brains did not default to such atrocious words. Also, instead of writing that word here on my talk page, could you write it as your answer at the RfQ? -- carol (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol, this isn't about word games. It's time to be serious. There are problems with your contributions that create a substantial cleanup job; the people who are working on this have been setting aside other matters in order to set this right. The current situation cannot and will not continue indefinitely. We would much rather have you with us, collaborating and editing, but you must make adjustments to your manner of contributing. For instance, when you upload images from a 700 page book the standard practice is to include a page number with each upload. You have not been providing that information. That is one of many problems we've identified. Durova^Charge! 08:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be somewhat mystifying, please reword it! -- carol (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

700 pages is a lot of book; did I do that alone? -- carol (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That instance is one of the things I outlined on the RFC talk page; did you read it? One of the very simplest, in fact. And I've simplified the scope of mistake. You see, you were also using an inappropriate public domain rationale in those uploads. You claimed the source was the work of a United States government agency, even though that agency was not created until 22 years after that book's publication. That book was, in fact, not a United States government publication at all. It was published by a regular New York City publisher, written by a private club, and the copyright was held by two private people. It's a serious error to mislabel a private copyright as government authorship. In this instance we were lucky: that copyright had also expired. Yet that raises doubts whether those images actually came from that 700 page book and calls into question the public domain claims in other uploads of yours (some of them look very dubious; many of the links are broken and in some instances you appear to have taken copyrighted work out of private blogs). The direction this is headed will probably end in mass deletions; if you want this work retained you would be well advised to help correct the omissions and errors in documentation. It is important that you improve your editing practices. For the last week you have been continuing to create the same problems while the request for comment is ongoing. That is unacceptable. The reason Shoemaker came and asked what you meant in that riddle was because it appeared that your only contribution to the request for comment had been to insult it. We are documenting your conduct because, if it does not improve soon, we will be asking for external restrictions to be placed upon it in order to prevent further damage. Now you have a mentor. If this is unclear to you ask your mentor to help explain it. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora (3 volumes) is downloadable from Internet Archive, which may an easier way of checking than using Google Books. On the other hand, the PDFs are big enough to choke Acrobat Reader.

Furthermore, does anyone know whether someone's scan of an image from a public domain work is public domain, or is it copyrighted as a derivative work? Lavateraguy (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do (I'm an admin on Commons). That scan/copyright question isn't a problem for the types of images Carol is working with. These matters are already confusing to her, so let's keep things straightforward at her user talk. If you have side questions you're welcome to bring them to me directly. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think also, as in the case with plant taxonomy, that Carol appears to neither understand the initial issues of uploading images and their copyrights, nor the necessity to discuss and respond to issues raised by other editors well enough to continue uploading images. I think it is time to simply request that Carol cease activities on Wikipedia that she has difficulties understanding rather than pressuring her to resort to word games for inability to respond and/or inability to understand. The word games are off topic, and if Carol cannot stay on topic, then not participating in the topic, i.e. plant taxonomy, or uploading images, will remove the pressure to understand. Then, possibly, Carol can move forward slowly one step at a time, until she gains understanding sufficient to at least discuss the issue when she does it incorrectly.

Please, Carol, just cease uploading images without prior approval from someone knowledgeable. --Blechnic (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is pressuring her to resort to word games. She is doing that all on her own; we are asking her to express herself more clearly and stop the word games. Furthermore, with all content contributions, she ought to be checking with her mentor from now on in advance of uploading or editing. It should be very clear by now that there are serious problems on multiple levels. So if Carol actually has good intentions then the appropriate thing for her to do right now is halt, and check prospective edits with her mentor to be sure they're appropriate before she brings them live, and to keep checking with her mentor in advance until such time as her mentor determines she's ready to edit more independently. Durova^Charge! 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)