Junia3

March 2008

I'm one of those "far-left political ideologues and fanatics" that attempted to sabotage Yecke's career back when she was attempting to run for Florida's education commissioner. Your intentions for these edits are clear and I see what you are trying to do. You can't make the controversies magically go away, so you push it all the way down to the bottom of the page with biographical filler. That way, whenever a prospective voter visits the page, the first thing that they see won't be all the pro-intelligent design/creationism nonsense and nepotism allegations that Yecke tried to make go away with reputation defender. I'll admit it is more creative then plain vandalism, but here in wiki, I'm afraid motive will catch you some flak, or at least warrant some investigation since you just appeared out of nowhere specifically to edit Yecke's page. We'll be tracing your background for now. If you are found to be linked with reputation defender, or associated with trolls like Larry Farfarman and his legion (~5) of sockpuppets, all your changes will be reverted, which is a shame because it is a good biography... Karl23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Your recent edit to Cheri Yecke (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Cheri Yecke constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Whitewashing the Yecke article

These edits of yours [1] are a total whitewash of the topic and I've reverted them. If you want to make any further changes to the article discuss them first on the talk page. Odd nature (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your edits to this article are in conflict with our core rule governing content, WP:NPOV, and as such I've reverted. Please read and follow WP:NPOV and do not continue to delete or dilute verifiable content. Please also read and abide by WP:COI and WP:DE. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with ReputationDefender? FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way, shape, or form attached to Reputation Defender. I authored a legit biography. I am the only one who has left each side of the argument about the controversies up on the page - why can't you be the same? And, the only people here who have deleted "verifiable content" is you. While at first I did so on my very first draft, you'll notice I made the changes back quickly and on my own accord without any threat to you or anybody else. Let's simply allow the biography up and leave up the controversy. Whats the beef with that?Junia3 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thought, I find it rather comical that you are telling me to abide by the Neutral Point of View standards while with a straight face willing to call the revert a neutral point of view. Are you serious? I think what abides by the NPOV the most, is leaving the controversy up with the complete bio. What say you?Junia3 (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Thank you for your heartfelt response. Regardless of what form it is in now, according to the article editing history, you did try to remove the controversy section and replace it with a rant against a so-called liberal conspiracy. Your edit history revealed motive, and I had pointed it out how it could possibly work against you. I make no criticism for your biography section; in fact, I even mentioned that it was very good and detailed in my previous message. However, the fact of the matter is, based on the information you tried to edit, it makes it very clear that your intention was to remove or marginalize critical and controversial (not to mention, documented) information regarding Cheri Yecke. The reaction to this was extreme (I believe they reverted the entire article) because previously, when she was running for Florida's education commissioner, she and her supporters essentially tried to whitewash all of her past fundamentalist ties, with her supporters mounting an edit war on her article, along with hiring "professional" PR organizations such as Reputation Defender, who attempted to use legal scare tactics to remove potentially damaging information. The article was even locked from editing during her run for this position to prevent any further attempts by Yecke's supporters to conceal any more information. Vandalism of this type is looked at very critically on wiki.

Now, it may surprise you to learn that I, in fact, did NOT report any of your edits or made any attempt to contact wiki moderators about your actions, other than sending you a personal message and a warning of things to come, even though I am one of the "far-left political ideologues and fanatics" you mentioned since I was the one who started the controversy section. I am not the one who made the reverts either.

I would like to make a crack at the irony of mentioning the USSR when in fact people like Yecke are the ones suppressing ideas and free thought, especially if it runs in conflict with their theological convictions. That in itself is reason enough to derail her political career and prevent her from having any more political power or influence now or in the future, but that's just my opinion.

Karl23 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned and admitted above, at first I did delete the controversy part on my very first draft; but you'll notice I made the changes back quickly and on my own accord without any threat to you or anybody else. Let's simply allow the biography up and leave up the controversy part as well. Leave it all up. Whats the beef with that? Let's for a second leave Yecke out of this and talk about free thought and ideas. I am willing to leave up all of the controversy part along with the complete biography. Can we both agree that this allows for free thought for those who read the page?Junia3 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, intent and motive is what ultimately counted against you. Your first attempts to remove the controversy section brought about a warning for vandalism regardless of your reverting htem. Your subsequent revisions also contained attempts to marginalize Yecke's ties with the Santorum amendment, Teach the controversy, and other pro-creationism and intelligent design movements (conveniently left out of the biography despite writing about her personal and professional life to such detail). Reputation Defender and many of Yecke's supporters had attempted these same actions when she was politically active in the Florida education system, which is why even now, your actions are subjected to much scrutiny. The fact that you sort of appeared out of nowhere just to make edits to the Yecke article also fits into past vandalism patterns.

When all is said and done, take it up with Odd nature or the Yecke article discussion page. Here's an offer you can make: Put the biography section AFTER the controversy section. In terms of format, it doesn't make any sense, but it will allay suspicion of you watering down or concealing the controversial info.

Karl23 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your level-headed suggestion and even-tempered discussion with me. I have tried to contact or write Odd nature and gave it another shot tonight. I hope to receive some kind of response so a compromise can be reached. One thing I can see now is; her opponents have an entire army coming out of the wood-work and looking at this page. It's getting rather silly. I understand there was some debate or argument going on long before I came onto the scene here; with both sides fighting endlessly. I sincerely hope we can compromise and keep the entire bio up; including the "revert" copy. I have no objection to doing so. Junia3 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Test edits

If you want to make test edits like this one please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:CheriYecke.jpg

when you say "I agree that this photo can be used by anybody" has Dr. Yecke agreeded to this?Geni 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth in edit summaries

This [2] was not an "attempt at compromise" but simply restoring a version already rejected by the community as a whitewash [3][4]. Your sole focus on this article, use of dishonest edit summaries and edit warring to whitewash it call into question whether you are actually interested in writing a complete, accurate encyclopedia. Not to mention the outstanding question of whether you are possibly a paid POV pusher affiliated with Reputation Defender as others have suspected. We know Yecke hired Reputation Defender to sanitize her online profile, and here you are doing just that at Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides methods for dealing with your sort of 'editing.' The only question now is whether are you genuinely interested in compromise? Whether you revert again to the same whitewash will give us our answer. Odd nature (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind? I already denied being a part of RD. (try reading above) And tell me; what do you consider a legit biography? The one that is posted that has barely any information at all and is heavily slanted to your own views? And please, spare me the "community" talk - this is nothing than a few of you hate-filled elitists spilling sewage as propaganda because you're scared of a fair argument. I am genuinely interested in compromise and have offered such a dozen times with ZERO response of any of you. Tell me, what would your compromise be? The crap that keeps getting posted? (though, I have included it in my version). Junia3 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CheriYecke.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CheriYecke.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Even if Yecke gave you this image you still do not own the copyright and so cannot release it for use on Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)