Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:19, 19 September 2012

Hello! I see you've added a reference to some FOIA material to the Stalking article, giving links to Wikimedia Commons pages as the source cite. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether a document on Commons is actually authentic: could you please add cites to the original source of the material, in some way that can be publicly verified? -- The Anome (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Dada davis (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

--Thanks, Dada davis -- what a nice gesture. I'm guessing that it's for the work on the stalking page? Send me an e-mail, if you'd like to talk. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you work on references in the Stalking article

Hi. I greatly appreciate your work on providing references for the article on stalking. However, I worry that Google Docs references may not be stable over the long run: have you considered tracking these resources down using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (see http://www.archive.org/web/web.php ), which is designed to provide stable URLs for long-term archiving?

For example, the resource you linked to recently from Google Docs appears to be archived by the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20110828151246/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svs1_06.pdf

Also, you can use "named references" to reference the same resource more than once, instead of having to make a copy of the same reference each time. This also has the advantage that the references to the resource will be consolidated in the reference list at the end of the article, and if another editor needs to fix the citation to replace a dead link or otherwise improve it, all the references to it will be sorted at one go. If you take a look at my recent edits to the article, you can see some examples. -- The Anome (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anome. I know that the Google Docs reference isn't the best..., but it's the only one that I could find. I'll keep looking, but I felt that, temporarily, it was better than a dead link? When I use the Wayback Machine, I get the following message: "You attempted to access: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svs1_06.pdf This is a known malicious web site. It is recommended that you do NOT visit this site. The detailed report explains the security risks on this site." I'm not sure what to do... Also, I'll take a look at your edits regarding the "named references" issue, but I'll have to do it later today. I appreciate the help and suggestions -- I'm still fumbling in the dark, at times. (Is it best for me to respond to you here, or should I be using your talk page?) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Anome, Now I understand that you made the changes. Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm still getting the error noted above -- "This is a known malicious web site." -- when I try to access the SVS (Supplemental Victimization Survey via the Misplaced Pages page. Also, the link to the report itself is "dead" again. The link which is current is: http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=45862 (I'll try to fix it.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking

Batvette has left a lengthy and thoughtful discussion concerning "gang stalking" and the use of that particular section and reference: please honor his request and use Talk:Stalking to discuss it rather than just reverting. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct is being discussed at WP:ANI#Stalking. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that any editing while your other account is blocked will be construed as block evasion and will likely be grounds for an indefinite block of this account. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: the "wasn't what it would seem" comment on your userage: what was it? How did PeaceFrog appear after a lengthy absence right after your edits were questioned? Where did the IP come from? You owe the explanation: SPIs aren't done to clear anyone's name, and there appears to have been coordinated editing to maintain the addition, which has been criticized by several editors, as well as straightforward edit-warring by the PeaceFrog account and the IP. Good-hand/bad-hand accounts are not permitted. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy

I don't need to be advised on wiki policy by an editor who has been blocked for using sock puppet accounts to stack voting in RFC polls. I have not attacked your person, don't even know what comments you are talking about. You are not the wiki mommy or hall monitor and repeatedly posting your condescending remarks on my talk page as if it is your place to belittle people over the rules approaches harassment. Kindly cease and desist. Batvette (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have followed Wiki policy to the letter in responding to your personal attack on the Stalking talk page. Civility is also the rule on Misplaced Pages. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Batvette, Please refer back to your comments on the Stalking talk page to answer your own question. (Also, for the record, let it be noted (as has been stated before), there was never any attempt "to stack votes.") Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What wiki policy states "Elizabeth should go look for other editors behavior and go make condescending remarks as if they are stupid and don't know the rules on their talk page"?

Why should you care- or are you now admitting you ARE Peacefrog and were offended by my remarks about him/you and his/your delusional behavior promoting bizarre conspiracy theories about people in red shirts and on crutches all around you jangling keys and clicking pens, in a global conspiracy to get you mistakenly committed or have you kill yourself just for having to look at them? You want that cracked material excluded because his actions are that of the poster child of the movement. If you find any of the above offensive, why the hell are you promoting it everywhere?

Why don't you go to Now Public and chastise some people there about signing out and recommending their own comments and posting as multiple users? Your posting on my talk page was out of line because you break the rules when it suits your agenda and only did so to be condescending and belittling. I know the rules and that was no personal attack. (neither is anything in this reply!) Describing someone's activities is NOT an attack on their person. Reviewing my post reveals not one statement which can be construed as ad hominem, but it makes him/you look bad and why is that? Because what you are promoting is just silly. If you don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist, stop promoting silly conspiracy theories is all I can say. Batvette (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)