User talk:108.178.115.3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (108.178.115.3) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! — PaleoNeonate — 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mary Nolan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Despite your claim that this incident is well documented you provided no reliable source. And your edit summaries are way out of line. Meters (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mary Nolan. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop doing this. If you have reliable sources then add them to the article, and stop making outrageous edit summaries. Meters (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mary Nolan. Add a source or leave it out. Meters (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mary Nolan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

reliable sources[edit]

It's interesting that you keep bringing up the fact I have not sourced my claims and yet... I got this information directly on Wikipedia. It states very clearly that Mannix beat Nolan so severely that she required *15 surgeries* to address the damage done to her body and a six month hospital stay. This is also where the nurses - who resurfaced years later concerning Nolan's alleged addiction to morphine - came from, also stated as fact on Wikipedia. This has not been disputed as fact on Wikipedia as of this date. In essence, I don't need to site a source if it's already sourced by someone else on Wikipedia. You also stated my summaries are "outragous". I take extreme offense to your comment and the fact you miss the material point being made here. Domestic violence is what is outragous. Period. A man doing that to a woman... and going with no jail time and not even compensating her in a civil suit... I have stated nothing but the truth based on information stated as truth already on Wikipedia. I have worked in domestic violence non profits for many years. And I will take my defense of a CLEAR survivor of domestic violence publicly if you choose to go there - or especially if you attempt to silence anyone's voice defending a woman in this type of instance when she cannot speak for herself. How dare you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs) 10:03, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page where user started a duplicate thread. Meters (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mary Nolan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


Stop involving YOURSELF in an edit war immediately or you could be blocked from further usage of Wikipedia. When it comes to protecting women from "men" attempting to CLEARLY "gloss" over extreme cases of domestic violence, I will not stand by. You will lose this argument. REAL men don't condone abuse of women, ignore it, or EDIT IT OUT. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


Your accusations have no merit and are certainly not based on anything I have done. I reverted your edits exactly for the reasons stated, nothing less, nothing more. Stevie is the man! Talk

Work 01:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Your eager interest in deleting my additions - despite this same claim being made multiple times in several other areas of this same exact Wikipedia page - screams otherwise. But by all means, keep telling yourself you're "the man". - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


Again, your accusations have no merit. You are the only one in engaging in disruptive behavior, adding content for which you fail to back up with reliable sources, as every other Wikipedian is required to do. Also, you are engaging in personal attacks, and with what I have already collected, I can bring this to the attention of administrators, and these attacks, along with your disruptive behavior, may well see your editing privileges taken away. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 01:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


BRING IT to the attention of the administrators. This actually sounds like a good open discussion for all men and women on social media. It's interesting that you have made NO attempt to delete claims of her alleged "sexual activity" and "abortions" - eventhough these have no "reliable source". Your specific selection of her 15 surgeries and six month hospital stay as needing to be deleted for lack of "a source", while leaving all the allegations of her personal character made by this publicity puppet intact is NOT A GOOD SIGN. And get over yourself, these are not personal attacks. These are keen observations. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


Again, no basis in fact whatsoever. I have not spent any time defending other content on the page. If other parts of the article aren't based on reliable sources, they should be questioned as well. Everything I have done has been above board and according to Wikipedia policy. I can't say the same about your efforts. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Actually... TOTAL basis in facts: you have spent your time repeatedly attempting to delete allegations against Mannix while having no problem with the completely *unsourced* allegations against Mary Nolan. Your chosen - repeated - focus on one and not the other DOES speak volumes. My behavior is what is above board - defending a clear victim of domestic violence. If you have a problem or take offense to someone calling out the obvious, I suggest you move on to less keenly observant users. Or... can you in any way deny that you only chose to repeatedly concern yourself with unsourced claims against Mannix? while leaving mulitple outrageous allegations against Mary Nolan's character intact? - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


  • Meters, User:Stevietheman, I suggest you leave this be. IP editor, your defense of this woman is appreciated, but you'll have to do it somewhere else, especially if your defense is editorial commentary that lacks verification--it is simply not encyclopedic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


I will not do it elsewhere until you remove ALL completely unsourced allegations made by Mannix and his publicity hound against Mary Nolan - her alleged abortions and sexual activity are all left up on the page without disruption. Is that point lost on you? - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


  • The allegations are sourced, and they are phrased properly--as allegations. If there are any specific instances that bother you, you may bring them up on the article talk page. Please try to speak more politely to other editors--this isn't the internet. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Interesting. I already added the word ALLEGED - and made that point repeatedly here. Thereby, according to your and Wikipedia's standards (stated above) I have cleared up any necessity to deleted my edits. I have also added relevant *sourced* information concerning the desolate legal options Mary Nolan had at her disposal as a survivor of domestic violence in 1930's America. I am annoyed enough now to potentially look into her hospital records to verify her stay. And this is the internet. Polite is condescending. And when one is justifiably outraged, the truth must be told ungarnished. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


  • Please see Wikipedia:Truth. Polite is not condescending, and I will be happy to enforce civility, if I must. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Also... "sourcing" Howard Strickling's allegations of Nolan's personal behavior by simply referring to the claims he made against her still makes them allegations. I can simply source Mary Nolan's allegations against Mannix by citing the lawsuit she filed against him.

I will enforce the right of women everywhere to stand up against sexism, misogyny and blatant attempts to omit allegations of domestic violence and physical assault - while inexplicably leaving intact slanders of the victim's character. This IS victim shaming. And while you make threats to silence my voice, I WILL take this truly public to whatever social and local media outlet is concerned with now a GROUP of men repeatedly concerning themselves with trying to delete allegations of domestic violence while leaving allegations against the victim's character intact. Happy to go there. I have worked for domestic violence non profits for many years and this discussion would be welcome in a more open forum should you choose to continually prove my point with your archaic means of "control". I have stated nothing but the truth here in an intelligent and honest manner. Do you have a problem with people expressing their emotions? - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


WELL, WELL, WELL... what have we here? I found a source far more critical to this issue than I ever could have expected to locate so quickly. It's a book written all about... guess who, both Mannix and Howard Strickling... just the two of them. Guess what the title is? "The FIXERS". Yep. And not only are there sourced witnesses to Mary Nolan's repeated physical abuse by Mannix, showing up repeatedly with bruises and black eyes AND a cited source for her near fatal beating that landed her in the hospital for six months requiring 15 surgeries, you might also be interested to know that Mannix is also accused in the book of BREAKING HIS WIFE'S BACK. This is a MONSTOR. Still expecting me to be polite? I will place this source on Wikipedia not due to your unnecessary request but to further display to the world how barbaric this man and is entourages' treatment of a young woman was. Incidentally, the drug addiction to morphine began during her six month hospital stay due the the physical agony of the beating she was suffering from, and the book also cites resources claiming Mannix was behind her 1930 firing from Universal, we already know he hired the detective who threatened her - according to the book - to drop all charges against Mannix or face drug charges for possession of morphine. FIXER is an appropriately evil name for this person. I will NEVER forget the blatant misogyny displayed here. I will be having plenty of discussions concerning this. Silence = death. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)

  • You're kidding, right? "you might be interested to know..." Seriously. The edits I just made are based on that book. Which I found in the references. This book. Which was added in 2014 as a reference by Pinkadelica. Three years ago. And that stuff about the drugs, the painkillers, I just added that to the article--in this edit, seven minutes before this last rant of yours. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Who do you think YOU'RE KIDDING? Seriously????? You just "happened" to add that stuff "SEVEN minutes ago". I could not stop laughing. Oh! And before my "rant" (using that word is not at all a sexist interpretation of completely rightous indignation. Nooooooooo.) Yeah, I bring all this stuff to light and you suddenly "a few minutes ago" start adding it to the site. Sounds like covering your own behind to me. I WILL be adding plenty more SOURCED information in defense of Mary Nolan now that I've found this book and I have a feeling I will find plenty of other sources. Good luck stopping me. GOODBYE TO YOU, Good Riddance and Good Luck with being a misogynist. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


And not for nothing, you contradict the ENTIRE argument initially MADE by "Meters" on this talk (for his repeatedly "undoing" my edits) when you snidely act like the fact the book has been sourced since 2014 is some sort of slight against me. Um... have you even read the first line of my comments on this talk? I have been *repeatedly* saying the following: "WHY do I need to source information ALREADY SOURCED on Mary Nolan's page." Maybe you should actually read through the ignorant responses made to my repeated claim before acting like you're telling me something I don't know. It is only the REPEATEDLY OBSTINATE response by Meters and others that I have to "re-site" this source that finally got me to click on it (to source it to my edits), crack open the book online, and start reading the shockingly heinous details. NICE TRY. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)


And STOP deleting my addition of highly relevant - and SOURCED - information on the limited legal options available to victims of domestic violence in 1930s America. Maybe it doesn't occur to you that many people research Mary's life story as an example of women being taken advantage of and abused at the turn of the century. You have NO RIGHT to delete this information as it is relevant, sourced, and applies to Mary's civil suit. I will take this as FAR as I need it to go to ensure this information is not omitted. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:108.178.115.3 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: ). Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Warning: John from Idegon and Stevie is the man![edit]

I have taken a screen shot of your latest talk comments with Stevie is the man! Did you really think I wouldn't see that you referred to this topic as:

FWOMPT = "a fucking waste of my precious time."

Woooooooow. So you think you've "reported" ME - do you John? I will be more than happy to "report" (i.e. expose) both of your incredibly callous attitudes towards a topic of critical importance to those with a moral conscious - young women being beaten within an inch of their lives... as an f-ing waste of your time...? Who cares about Wikipedia. You two should be reported in a way more open format.

Any further attempts on either of your parts to silence a voice for victims of domestic violence is gonna backfire on you BIG TIME. YOU ARE COMPLETELY ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ISSUE. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)




And now I've just seen your latest post John made on Stevie is the man! - you seriously just served to completely CONFIRM that the thread was about me, which includes the FWOMPT = "a fucking waste of my precious time." Are you that dumb?

What is "out of bounds" John is your "friend" referring to the topic of domestic violence as a "FWOMPT = fucking waste of my precious time". You two are *completely* out of bounds. You honestly think your attempts to get me "blocked" from Wikipedia will help you? I've saved all of your comments... and I have taken plenty of screen shots. You are only tempting me to take this WAY further as far as exposing your archaic attempts to "silence" a voice for victims. You both need to be exposed for your incredibly callous attitudes towards the abuse of women - NO WONDER you're all over her page trying to repeatedly delete relevant material. I highly suggest backing off now. But you both seem way too dumb to do that... and of course that would mean taking orders and clearly you like to give them out.

Consider YOURSELF reported genius.

- comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)

Note[edit]

I have improved the citation for the reference you have added (Martin 1973). There are a few things I would like to share with you. Wikipedia is not about soapboxing or for activism (WP:SOAPBOX). What it requires, being an encyclopedia, is that the tone of the text be adequate (formal enough, non-promotional, avoiding weasel words or inappropriate labels, etc), but most importantly, that the claims be well referenced. The events must also be notable (WP:NOTABLE) enough to merit mention (I think that they are in this case) and they must be represented in due weight (WP:WEIGHT).
The "hazardous" messages you have received earlier are standard templates designed to have several levels of gravity, which is very convenient for technical reasons. We do attempt to explain further using more personal messages when that's necessary (like this message).
During interaction with other editors, it is important to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and to remain civil (WP:CIVIL) while also avoiding personal attacks (WP:PA). Calling other editors misogynists and using excessive punctuation and uppercase is not constructive and contrary to those principles. It is also important not to harass (WP:HARASS) other editors; when they ask to stop posting on their talk page, this should be respected.
As for edit warring (WP:WARRING), it is never acceptable, even in cases where the claims are true. When others disagree about content we want to add, we should calmly start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page to form friendly consensus with other editors, instead of constantly reinserting the text.
The material you wanted to add was not refused because of alleged misogyny. The situation was not properly handled. The information ended up accepted in an altered form (to be encyclopedic). Unfortunately, a lot unnecessary drama occurred in the process.
Thank you, and have a good day, — PaleoNeonate — 07:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added a Welcome message at the top of your talk page which contains more information on how Wikipedia works. — PaleoNeonate — 07:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Since when is adding facts, concerning a near fatal physical assault of a female by a male, "soapboxing". First the edits were repeatedly omitted for "not being sourced" - when I repeatedly pointed out it was sourced (as it were, in 2014) when originally mentioned in earlier sections. Next, I am accused of citing a source that's "been there" since 2014. Whatever your opinion is on this, there is no more uncivil, attacking, "ALL CAPS" insult than that found on Stevie is the man! talk page. Calling me, and/or the topic of the abuse of women, a "FWOMPT = a fucking waste of my precious time." You think he feels "harassed" by me? Ridiculous. My one time, few sentence post letting him know I saw this comment and have appropriately documented it was well within my right to defend myself against such disgusting slander. I have reported both of them to the proper discussion board. I will see what they have to say about this.

You may stay calm in the face of one, then two, then three, then four men... selectively omitting fact-based information concerning a heinous physical assault of a woman by a man, while repeatedly refusing to address the unsourced allegations made by her abuser concerning her reputation. But I consider it inhumane to be anything but incensed. I had no doubt I would win the editing "war" (that THEY engaged in), now I will take this disgustingly nonchalant attitude towards the blatant sexism displayed here by Wikipedia users to a more relevant forum. Good day to you! - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)

Have you noticed the discussion threads which other editors opened at Talk:Mary_Nolan? This is the relevant talk page I was talking about in this case, where discussion should take place to agree on appropriate changes to the article. Note that we also have women wikipedians, several of which are well respected administrators. We also have procedures to request third opinion, such as WP:3O. — PaleoNeonate — 08:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

People kept mentioning for me to "comment there" but I did not see a link or anything on Mary Nolan's Wikipedia page. Thank you for sending. I have saved the link and added a comment concerning yet another attempt (by someone who claims to be disinterested in the whole topic) to delete one of my edits. - comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talkcontribs)

May 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

After your block expires you are welcome to contribute constructively here, without the personal attacks, edit warring, and soapboxing. Please see WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for applicable policies/guideline. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

FWOMPT[edit]

Dear IP user, I used the term FWOMPT not as a description of the article in question, nor the seriousness of what Nolan went through, but explicitly about your incessant baseless charges against me and others as well as your ongoing harassment and bullying. That took up a lot of my time and I actually lost a lot of actual sleep last night having to deal with the crazy mess you created. And yes, your (many would characterize "wild") charges against me and others are totally baseless. All myself and other editors have done is the normal work of ensuring that articles follow policies/guidelines. We have not taken any stand with regards to what Nolan went through, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our actions heretofore (note that I actually sympathize with anyone who has gone through abuse as I have been personally abused emotionally by someone in the past). As Drmies said on his talk page, you have come in here with all guns a-blazing, throwing out one indiscriminate, unfounded charge after another, and tarnishing longstanding reputations, and you think your belligerence/bullying isn't going to be answered or denied? This has nothing to with anyone's "misogyny" but totally your negative behavior. As soon as you own up to your responsibility to follow Wikipedia's policies/guidelines without incessant, baseless personal attacks, I will be happy to work with you. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)



Okay this starts off in defense of myself - I have no choice but to do that - but if you stick with it, there are some positive parts that I hope will appease any concerns here:

Oh my gosh... You think I'm going to believe any of this? I don't think you believe any of this.

Let's get one thing straight, you, and some of your companions, behaved like a bully, not me. I refrain from using that word, as it is loaded, but it's been thrown at me now so I have to defend myself. You all are the ones who created this completely avoidable "mess", as you call it. No two ways about it. I'm not going to allow you to throw toxic words at me like "bully" and "harassment" given your behavior towards me. Are you kidding me?

Fact: I was here completely *on my own* (I am now researching users/editors/admin who are knowledgeable about women's history to manage/edit Nolan's bio), and I have held my own, knowing I am on the right side of the issue, requiring no one else's input or assistance. And no less than four of you contacted each other to get around the three revert "edit warring" rule. Once one of you had used two undo edits, another one of you would "suddenly" appear to use another two - you simply passed the torch to clearly edit war with me.  In less than a 48 hour period, you all had no less than eight undo edits. I was trying to add relevant facts concerning domestic violence on Mary Nolan's page. While the four of you repeatedly - "disruptively" to use your term - wasted everyone's time attempting to prevent me. It doesn't matter if it was neutral or political, it was unproductive and unhelpful. I will have to exclude Drmies from this since after telling me I would have to defend Nolan "elsewhere", to which I refused, he finally got on board after reading the sourced book - obviously seeing the necessity to add a significant amount of detail (more than I originally added) to properly communicate the truth of Mannix's barbarism. But the rest of you appeared to operate as a group against one person, made clear by the comments you openly stated on your talk page... if that is not bullying, I don't know what is.

You repeatedly claim my observations of your behavior are "baseless" and "wild" and that you didn't take a stand against me, so you leave me no choice but to defend myself. This is not attempting to draw conclusions about what your motivation actually was behind these actions... these are examples of your behavior, that let to my logical interpretation:

  1. 1: No matter how many times I pointed out the fact that you spent your time repeatedly deleting the allegations I added against Mannix, while leaving completely *unsourced* allegations against Mary Nolan intact - in the very same paragraph - you said those should be deleted also, but simply acted like it was someone else's problem - i.e. didn't concern yourself with it. Leading me to wonder... What's this person's deal with needing to undo this information and not the other, despite my bringing it to your attention? It's an understandable line of thinking to follow - especially given your persistence. As I said, your chosen - repeated - focus on one and not the other did not help your claims of neutrality.
  1. 2: No matter how many times I pointed out the fact that my edit was taken from the very same Mary Nolan Wikipedia page, just in a different section, nearly word for word (that she was hospitalized for six months and required 15 surgeries due to a severe physical beating by Mannix) and that this piece of information already had a "reliable source" listed in the references there, you, and your companions, still continued to delete my edits. At the end of all this, one of you even openly admitted this was an "already cited source" from 2014.

Why so uncooperative? This, combined with reason #1, created even more doubt about your claim of neutrality.

  1. 3: Early on I added the word "alleged" abuse - did not stop you all from robotically removing my edit, even though this requires less stringent sourcing
  1. 4: I appreciate your comments in support of Mary Nolan here, but we are at a late date with all this, I have had in my mind all this time your former comment on your talk page about the fact I (me) "sure am spending a lot of time to defend the reputation of someone 'long dead'". That did not exhibit to me any particular empathy for Nolan. You are not required or asked to have any, that is entirely your business. But I expect to be treated fairly in my good faith efforts to expose the truth about her life and felt I was met with this type of callous attitude and repeated, unnecessary obstacles. The material point is, it is this former comment of yours that only added to my view that you were not all that neutral. I am happy to learn otherwise from you on your latest post and take you at your word on that, that's the end of it. 

And you know what, I could have read your recent comments and been like, okay... maybe (incredibly) he didn't realize how his actions were coming across. Alright.

But then I have to see this today (see item #5), reminding me that actions do speak louder than words:

  1. 5: After all your claims of neutrality, after me telling you to back off and move on and even Drmies advising you and Meters to "Leave this be". Here you are AGAIN, on Mary Nolan's page, personally making sure yet *another* edit of mine is omitted that was properly sourced and relevant - an edit that was bothering no one else. You took it upon yourself to get involved, when you claim to not want to be involved. (The edit concerned the lack of laws available to Nolan in the 1930's when seeking justice for being physically abused - highly relevant to her choosing a civil instead of criminal legal case.) You did this after saying this entire process has been "an f-ing precious waste of your time". Obvious question: then why are you still choosing to spend your time messing with my additions to Nolan's bio? You think you're being harassed - are you kidding me? Given all that's happened up to this point, it's pretty much irrelevant if you think you're correct or "in the right" about the undo of this addition - you seriously couldn't just move on and drop it? How could you think this latest move on your part could be interpreted as a neutral concern for "edits being properly sourced"? Your presence there, given your latest post on my talk page, appears vindictive to me. If you're the one being "harassed" then why do you keep showing up everywhere I go, attempting to omit my good faith efforts?

Also... using words like "crazy" mess - maybe you're not aware of this, but that word comes across as thinly veiled sexism.

I am very sorry to learn you have experienced emotional abuse in the past. I truly am. I am sensitive to that and I don't want you to be losing sleep or experience anxiety about your reputation. I have certainly been made to feel extremely stressed out over all of this. I am only defending what I think is right, and it is an emotional topic for me, for which I offer no apologies to anyone. I believe it should be an emotional topic. But I don't want to see someone suffer or get hurt in the process. That is not my intention.

If, given all of the behaviors listen here, you still feel it's been misinterpreted or that it wasn't your intention to come across that way or you simply realize at this point it shouldn't have been your intention, that is fine.

I hope this resolves this confrontation.

Best.


The following comments apply to everyone here, not to Stevietheman, and will be cut/pasted to a new section also:

To avoid any further confrontation and avoid all these unnecessary disagreements, I feel it would probably be best for everyone to have Mary Nolan's page cared for by editors/administrators who openly identify as being educated in women's history, knowledgeable about women's issues, and who actively participate in the creation of women's pages on Wikipedia. This is not to convict anyone involved in this so far or about any one person in particular. No matter how neutral each person's presence here may be, at the end of the day, users/editors/administrators who are openly focused on women's issues are the ones who should probably manage her page (this can include males and females - it's simply about their choice of focus on Wikipedia).

I keep hearing this same statement - from everyone here - about how information needs to be limited to what is strictly factual and relevant. But that decision is always going to be somewhat subjective. The subjectivity of it is the entire reason for the talk and edit pages of course. And I'm sure this is not the only time discussions have become heated among users/editors/administrators given people are very passionate about what matters to them. I do believe a group of people focused on women's history and issues would probably be the best group to make these types of calls and might avoid a lot of stress. 

Because everyone's identities/histories/personal experiences are so hidden on here, there is no way for me to know what your particular focus is, so again, this is not a condemnation of anyone here.

I am going to hope, in good faith, given the sensitivity of the subject matter on Mary Nolan's page, the necessity for this is not lost on anyone.

Thanks.

I'll just suffice to say that I am choosing not to deal with this ongoing and unnecessary belligerence. And I don't have to. I will just remark about the content I removed. It was removed according to our best practices. I have been an editor since 2004 and I know something about that. I am merely observing our policies and guidelines, not trying to block something you feel needs to be said. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal op-ed page. Until I receive an apology for all the baseless attacks you have levied against me (and are continuing to levy against me), there will be no further communication. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

care for Mary Nolan's Wikipage[edit]

To avoid any further confrontation and avoid all these unnecessary disagreements, I feel it would probably be best for everyone to have Mary Nolan's page cared for by editors/administrators who openly identify as being educated in women's history, knowledgeable about women's issues, and who actively participate in the creation of women's pages on Wikipedia. This is not to convict anyone involved in this so far or about any one person in particular. No matter how neutral each person's presence here may be, at the end of the day, users/editors/administrators who are openly focused on women's issues are the ones who should probably manage her page (this can include males and females - it's simply about their choice of focus on Wikipedia).

I keep hearing this same statement - from everyone here - about how information needs to be limited to what is strictly factual and relevant. But that decision is always going to be somewhat subjective. The subjectivity of it is the entire reason for the talk and edit pages of course. And I'm sure this is not the only time discussions have become heated among users/editors/administrators given people are very passionate about what matters to them. I do believe a group of people focused on women's history and issues would probably be the best group to make these types of calls and might avoid a lot of stress.

  Because everyone's identities/histories/personal experiences are so hidden on here, there is no way for me to know what your particular focus is, so again, this is not a condemnation of anyone here.

I am going to hope, in good faith, given the sensitivity of the subject matter on Mary Nolan's page, the necessity for this is not lost on anyone.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.115.3 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"I feel it would probably be best for everyone to have Mary Nolan's page cared for by editors/administrators who openly identify as being educated in women's history, knowledgeable about women's issues, and who actively participate in the creation of women's pages on Wikipedia." That's not going to happen. What you are getting are editors knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I suggest you work with them as otherwise you'll not have a very productive experience. --NeilN talk to me 04:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I can see why there are so many articles online about this issue. Actually there appear to be several Wikipedia groups focused on specifically creating more Wikipages concerning women's stories and history - and there was recently an awareness raising community wide event, initiated and hosted by two of Wikipedia's founders, to spread the word about this and attract and retain more female users. I already found ways online to directly communicate with what seemed to be a growing number of positive and healthy groups. Why would you have a problem with this?

The types of editors you identify are of course welcome to edit the article, as is anyone else. We don't ask editors to "openly identify" as anything. --NeilN talk to me 05:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You are right that Wikipedia attempts to fight systemic bias about Women's issues. I believe that all editors you encountered also support those initiatives. I urge you to please read again what I have posted earlier. There are collegial ways to function, as well as disfunctional ways. You may join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History if you wish. Will conflict of interest or behavioral issues prevent possible cooperation with that group? Will you from now on enjoy Wikipedia? Only the future can tell.
Please look at the vaginal steaming article and at who contributed to it, [1] you'll at least find one editor you have met. Am I mistaken that this article carefully (if not overly in weight) criticizes the practice and discloses its potential issues versus women's rights?
Also please see WP:ONUS. When someone reverts an edit because it is not immediately verifiable, it is the responsibility of the person to discuss on the article talk page or to more evidently reference the material on the next try. If that is reverted again, failure to reach consensus and restoring the edit again constitutes edit warring (WP:WARRING). But at this point I begin to repeat myself.
We also strongly encourage assuming good faith (WP:AGF), especially towards new editors (WP:BITE). Of course, this works both ways, or it simply cannot. You would know all this, had you read how Wikipedia works before jumping in. Moreover, noone is happy when what could have been a fruitful discussion immediately turns into drama and accusations, and those who love the project admire those who positively contribute to it (and mourn their loss). If you wish to continue to contribute, please start with a new attitude. Mistakes and sometimes drama happen. This is also what "dropping it means" (see WP:CARCASS).
Other than the Wikiproject I just mentioned, I have already mentioned other means to request third opinion above. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 05:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I actually feel nauseated by this situation because I have done considerable work to improve women biographies, and here comes this IP user, who not only doesn't understand our practices here, but doesn't know anything about my work, and then proceeds to slander the heck out of me, like I'm doing grave harm to women everywhere because I won't let her insert uncited material or tangential commentary into one article. It really creeps me out and saddens me, and makes me reconsider whether I want to continue here. If this IP users really knew our practices, they might know that if they continue slandering, they could end up being blocked from the site permanently after so many offenses. I would much rather she take a breather, and actually read some of our policies and guidelines, and try to understand what we're about, before flinging the feces. As the great Steve Martin used to say, "I'm sorry but I'm pissed!". Stevie is the man! TalkWork 06:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Jewellery because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Handyman has been reverted.
Your edit here to Handyman was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mht_Oe0DzOg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mht_Oe0DzOg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mht_Oe0DzOg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ciR27ncFk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ciR27ncFk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.