| Revision as of 13:10, 16 September 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits tweak tense← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:31, 16 September 2014 edit undoSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits eh?Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::::If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ::::If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - ] (]) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:31, 16 September 2014
User:Sitush/Carol Moore
As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8), urged people to "do some research" on me, and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her.". The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.. The user then posted non-RS material they found out from their opposition research with an insulting and misleading comment. The user suddenly alleged they actually were working on a bio of me, perhaps to avoid someone bringing a Wikihounding ANI vs them. I think this is just a thinly veiled WP:Attack page - and obvious harassment - and should be deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Later note: I have asked at speedy deletion if it is too late to ask the page be deleted under the criteria: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" and "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also note: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, as I've explained to you on my talk page, and I can't see a single attack in what is said thus far. At least one arbitrator is also aware. If you're notable then you're notable. The prior AfDs closed as (1) no consensus and (2) delete, but with many people pointing out that there were sources out there. I didn't see the old version but I'll be astonished if my version isn't better. If that sounds like arrogance then so be it but please give me a chance. WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)