User talk:Ilena/Archive 2

Experiences on Wikipedia

I would like to share about my experiences on Wikipedia. Click here [1]

For a great video ... I recommend Ronz and Friends watch this one: [2]

For how I feel about defeating all three so called Quackbusters ... and their attempts to silence my voice and to change the history of this case: [3]

For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs.

I presume you are referring to me? Please confirm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated ... http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Wikipedia.htm#Barretry Ilena 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New archive created

Now you've got your first archive! -- Fyslee 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment and question

I copied this from your archive. Sorry, but I would like to keep this open and give you an opportunity to reply in light of [4] --Ronz 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Wikipedia. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded to above. Bow Wow Wow. In my opinion, saying "please" like Ronz does while erasing all my facts I'm posting is not "civility" but censure ...and I'll have none of it. Bullies are welcome to bully each other ... not me. Ilena 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. --Ronz 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. BTW ... I love this video ... what about you? [5]

[6] Please and thank you, Ilena 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In the post linked to, you state "they are facts, albeit ones that you and others would prefer to hide. " This is accusatory. The concern is OR. If the concern is OR, the answer is to find reliable sources which are acceptable, not accuse other editors of "hiding facts". You find that a post which uses the word "please" yet does not support your edits is "bullying" - yet another personal attack. You seem to be focusing on accusing others of bad faith, bullying, "hiding" information - and you are completely ignoring your own hostile, accusatory tone. I'm not sure if you realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you have legitimate concerns about content of an article, you can surely find a way to express those concerns without attacking other editors. You are redirecting focus here; ignoring concerns about your civility and responding with yet more attacks on other editors. Can you see how that is disruptive and not helping your case? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Would you please remove the link from your signature. Although I don't always agree with User:Ronz, he is quite correct in removing it from your signature wherever it appears. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Signatures may not contain links, and should be inserted at the end of text, rather than as a new line.

:::Paragraph 1
:::Paragraph 2 ~~~~

or

:::Paragraph 1
:::Paragraph 2 
:::~~~~

rather than

:::Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2 ~~~~

or

:::Paragraph 1
:::Paragraph 2 
~~~~

It makes it easier to follow our quoting convention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Attacks outside Wikipedia

I would like to add that I wasn't trying to get you banned from Wikipedia. I was trying to get you to follow the rules, policies, and guidelines (which you're still not doing), and stated that you would be banned from Wikipedia if you didn't follow them. That was not a threat, nor did I say that I would ban you from Wikipedia.

I did block you for WP:3RR, and I did say that I thought you had been banned from the articles in question, but my recollection was faulty. I've agreed not to take administrative action against you in the future.

WP:COI suggests that both you and Lee (if you've properly identified him, which is not entirely clear) should not edit the articles. I have no direct interest in the article, other then a general interest in eliminating quackery as I see it.

I request that you edit your blog to remove the misstatements of fact. WP:NPA doesn't require that you not attack Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia, but it does allow people to determine that your statements within Wikipedia are forbidden attacks if they refer to the statements outside. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider a misstatement of "fact" Arthur? Shalom. Ilena 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That I tried to get you banned from Wikipedia. I may have tried to get you blocked (and did block you for 3RR), but I would still oppose a long-term block or ban. I stated that you would be banned if you continued acting without concensus.

In fact, at the moment, the NCAHF incorporation status meets all our guidelines except possibly WP:BLP. I haven't deleted it in some time, nor has Mr. Lee (whoever he may be). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I have an answer to your COI concerns on my talk page, where you may comment. They aren't applicable to me in this case. If they ever are, please let me know. -- Fyslee 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point of view

Hi Ilena. While you've made it very clear what you think your point of view about Barrett, NCAHF, etc., perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for you to express these opinions. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for making this a useful information resource that anyone can contribute to. Though you seem to ignore these guidelines, you're still going to be held to them if you participate here.

You've repeatedly reverted my edits to The National Council Against Health Fraud, going against wiki policy and guidelines while dismissing mine and others' arguments as bias, "deny(ing) these facts", "acting in a disrespectful manner", "uneducated" or "pathetic".

While you've recently refrained from placing your own personal opinions directly into wiki articles, you're still reintroducing material that suits your point of view while dismissing all discussion concerning the material. Please stop.

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to The National Council Against Health Fraud, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's this, "winning through intimidation"? Your repeated deletion of NCAHF's "Incorporation status" facts (no opinions) has been shown to be policy baseless for a spotty corporate entity. Rons, many of your complaints and policy claims have been answered point by logical point, you spray people with the TLAs like no one I've seen, including former Wiki editors that were subsequently indefinitely blocked. Ilena needs to become more familiar & practiced with some editing conventions, the NCAHF etc articles are pretty tough neighborhoods for newbies to learn to walk in after dark. I would suggest to any admin to closely review the basis of your comments & claims to several of us, that you have fragmented to our talk pages. You are always spraying accusations and policy claims. And then if admins have questions, perhaps discuss it with me first rather than just "byting" newbies. One other thing, remember RfArb doesn't always come out the way (or who) filers/claimants expect, something you might have learned from the NCAHF article itself.--I'clast 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Ilena, please consider trying to be more observant of WP:SPAM and WP:EL.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to The National Council Against Health Fraud, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Ronz 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of others' comments

Warning

Please do not delete other people's comments on talk pages. It is considered vandalism, and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue in this manner. Even if you don't like their opinion, please be civil and remember that they are entitled to it. --Ronz 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR The National Council Against Health Fraud

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in The National Council Against Health Fraud. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

25 December 2006

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] --Ronz 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena's continued personal attacks

Ilena, you continue to violate policy by making personal attacks on other editors and by failing to assume good faith. You continually impute motives to others based on your own conspiracy theories, you continually violate a number of policies here, and you fail to collaborate with other editors who have opposing POV. Until you learn to do that, Wikipedia is not a place for you. Take your battles back to Usenet, where anything goes. If you want to edit here, then play by the rules. If you do that, I'll be glad to cooperate with you.

Let's get a few things straight here:

• Barrett does not own me, control me, or work through me. I occasionally contact him to attempt to get information. Anyone here can do that, and possibly with better success than I have had. None of that is forbidden and it is actually something that editors should do. We should research our subjects and attempt to get documentation.

• The Anti-Quackery Ring is my own creation, and was inspired by no one else. Neither Barrett or the NCAHF has anything to do with it. It is not his or its ring in any way, shape or form, so stop lying about that matter. The Skeptic Ring was something I inherited from the previous ringmaster. It took some time for me to convince Barrett that Quackwatch should be a part of those rings. Web rings have little effect on the site visits of larger sites, while smaller sites get some benefit. He has absolutely no influence on the rings, and in fact there are some sites in them of which he is less than enthusiatistic, and in fact I share the feeling about some. Milloy's site is one of those I am ambivalent about. I have no idea what Barrett thinks about it, and I couldn't care less. I make the decisions there. Anyone want to take over as Ringmaster? Applications accepted.....;-)

• I am greatly saddened by the effect your abominable behavior has on the cause of women with breast implant issues. I sympathize with that cause, and I also sympathize with the women who are ashamed to have you in their company. You do more harm than good for them. While neither my mother nor both MIL (my FIL remarried) had implants, they all died of breast cancer, so I've had these tragedies far too close to take them lightly.

• Please show some evidence that you can act like an adult and learn something here. Many editors have repeatedly tried to teach you proper behavior here, yet you persist in violating various policies, including attacking other editors, assuming bad faith, promoting yourself, posting links to your website, and generally bringing your Usenet wars to Wikipedia. Please show that you have some common decency, courtesy, good manners, and some semblance of good ethics. We haven't seen it yet. You seem to think that because you got away with posting other people's lies and undocumented personal attacks, that it's okay to post them. Well, it's not. It's still wrong, even if you can legally do so. That's the moral dilemma you fail to understand. You just don't seem to have an understanding of ethics and morality. On that matter you and Bolen are very similar. It's a street thug mentality, and we don't need it here. Here we try to cooperate. The best articles are often created by editors with opposing POV who cooperate. -- Fyslee 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages and "right to vanish"

Although I don't fully agree with the policy, users may generally remove warnings from their talk pages, and may make many other changes which do not place others' comments in an incorrect light. Removed warnings should be considered by administrators as being "received" in considering whether to block, but the removal, itself, does not violate policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena has not claimed that she will vanish. In light of the problematic nature of her presence here (constant grotesque violations of multiple policies without any consequences) and her failure to show even a slight attempt to learn how to do things here, she should not be treated with kid gloves, but should be treated as a hostile witness, with full disclosure of all her contributions and talk page comments being required at all times. She should not be allowed to hide her actions or interactions with others by deleting her own or their comments. People should not be allowed to get a false impression of her.

My understanding is that you have to actually vanish for the "right to vanish" to apply. The "right to vanish" protects those who leave Wikipedia; it doesn't exist to allow people to disassociate themselves from their prior edits and show up on the same page and argue with the same people with a blank slate. My feeling is that her comments should be restored, unless she not only asserts her "right to vanish", but actually vanishes.

Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility. Archives help other editors to scrutinize our track record here, and a preservation of that track record is often quite important to them. (The link to scrutinizing is from a totally different subject, but the principle still applies.)

If she were a good faith editor it would be an entirely different story. So far we haven't seen even a slight attempt to collaborate with editors of opposing POV, which is a requirement for editors here. Until then, she should not be allowed to hide, delete comments, or otherwise leave a false impression. If she showed evidence that she has heeded the warnings she has received, then (if I understand policy correctly), she might be allowed to delete the warnings. That hasn't happened yet.

There is a long discussion regarding "removing warnings" here. I haven't read it through. -- Fyslee 16:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

She's not removing warnings. She's removing everything. It's another matter entirely if she wants to remove specific warnings and say why. Of course, all other editors are free to continue discussions here and start new ones. --Ronz 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena. If you have a problem with Fyslee's comments, which you seem to do, then just remove his. Removing everyone else's without any indication by you is considered vandalism.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --[[User:R