Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have read the back-and-forth discussions between you and some of the Wiki administrators regarding the Christian / Newson murders article. I agree with much of what you say. I am still horrified and shocked that this crime has (still to this day) not received the media attention that it warrants. I am wondering ... is there anything at all that the "average Joe" can do to change this situation? Please advise. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) User talk:JosephASpadaro[reply]

Frankly,this is going to be one of those cases where the blogsphere is going to push the story while MSM plays catch up. All that's needed is for one mainstream outlet to seize on it and push it for a few days; another will follow, and so on.

I believe there is some preliminary hearing set for May 17. If there was an organized group to attend that hearing and organize a protest (as well as notify national media organizations, not just local ones), that would do a lot to garner attention. Of course, someone who was good at publicity (posters, catch phrases, etc.) should be in charge.

Unfortunately, the only groups I see in a cursory examination of online activity seem to be white supremacist/nazi organizations. That could potentially give this story legs, but for all the WRONG reasons. It would be an intelligent decision to stay as far away from anything like this if you want the story to pick up steam, and not make these kind of racist groups the center of the story - when it's clear that Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, and the horrors that happened to them, are the story.

So...if one wanted to get media attention, one would come up with a one-page synopsis, complete with pictures of victims and suspects, and mail that with a letter, noting the May 17 hearing, to media types who might find this case of interest.

See, the way things stand now, until something else happens with this story, there's nothing to grab onto. I was just thinking about this before, that the only real news hook right NOW for this story is the failure of MSM to publicize it. (And no news outlet will criticize itself.) So something HAS TO HAPPEN to push this back into the news cycle, and that would probably be the May 17 hearing.

I hope this helps.Simplemines 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. (JosephASpadaro 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Shoessss 23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the page to conform to your POV and "subliminal messages."

Thank you. :)

Simplemines 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simplemines, please do not refer to other editors good faith edits as vandalism. It should be clear that despite having different opinion that you, Shoessss is trying to work with you to reach a reasonable consensus about the article. Mocking Shoessss and making accusations of vandalism is not civil. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Edgar, Shoesss' "notice" had no basis in fact. I have NOT edited that article to add unsourced content. It is absolutely untrue, and I cannot think of why Shoesss would do such a thing, unless the intent is not congenial because of a disagreement of opinion.

Shoesss has made it quite clear he does not want any inclusion of race in the article, and he doesn't care if it's relevant or not. That is a wrong use of WP, and IMHO, a main reason why so many journalists will NOT use WP as a source. (And without "appeal to authority," I say this AS a newspaper reporter.)

I apologize for causing any issues. I would ask that Shoesss be similarly chided for pushing his POV into what should be a neutral article.

23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple, great work on the discussion page. Your contributions have brought some much needed rational, objective insight. The frustration of arguing with the internet mutants is very draining (and ultimately an exercise in futility), and I do need to get back to work so I can get some bucks together to land some pussy this weekend; but before I go, do you know how to report an admin for abuse of authority? --Douglasfgrego 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. I posted a subhead in the Discussion section on Shoesss' repeated removal of the race of the victims amd suspects from the Controversy section. I expect that will bring some type of administrative reply.

Apparently Shoesss also has some kind of bot program to do mass reverts, and he is misusing it (when I looked on his history page, he had done more than a dozen reverts to different articles, all within a few minutes.) Clearly he couldn't have READ all those articles to see what the changes were. He also posted those fraudulent "warning" notices on user pages, a byproduct of his handy dandy bot program.

At least one person complained vigorously on his discussion page. Shoesss, in expected fashion, blamed HIS use of the bot program on...the program! (The program FORCED him to do it, donchaknow.)

THIS is the type of behavior that should be dealt with by an administrator as quickly as possible.

Shoesss has taken it upon himself to force his POV into articles, and then uses a bot program to annoy people who disagree with him.

I believe if you go to his discussion page, you can find a link to the admins of the bot program. You can file a complaint there that Shoesss is misusing the program, which he clearly is. They may ban him from the use of the program. He may then devote himself to ferreting out further subliminal messages he feels are offensive to the WP community.Simplemines 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I received your note on my Talk Page. Thanks. Yes, I will check out the page that you suggested. Thanks for the heads up. (JosephASpadaro 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)) user talk:JosephASpadaro[reply]

You know that this sort of baiting and assumption of bad faith is not helpful, right? I understand you're frustrated with some of Wikipedia's 'limitations', but accusations of a cabal among administrators and other editors is far from the optimal way to achieve your goals. Please reconsider the acid wit, eh? -- nae'blis 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I didn't realize noticing that two close compatriots on WP were working the system to their advantage meant I was specifying a "cabal" (can two be a cabal?)

The lack of response to legitimate questions, the coziness of the two in question, as well as the fact that one of them wants to be an administrator (??!!) would make it somewhat clear that when they can't answer questions, they try to invoke administrative authority to get out of having to discuss and defend what it is they want to do with this article.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issues involved; they both refuse to do so, as is evidenced on the article's discussion page.

I have no "goals" (unless it's to make sure everyone has the opportunity to weigh in on Shoesss' chances of becoming an admin), except to ensure that what is factually correct stays in this article.

I cannot be sure that that is the same goal of the two editors in question.

I've always been willing to discuss this. That is not the case with these two folks.

Can you encourage them to discuss their issues on the discussion page, instead of trying to involve WP admins before the discussion even begins?

Thanks for your help. :)

Sorry it took me so long to reply here. Work and life continue to interrupt my WP editing. :P

You went a bit further than "noticing the coziness" of two editors, but you're probably unaware of the sometimes-sarcastic, sometimes-series history of the word "cabal" on Wikipedia. Nevermind on that, that was my fault for over-assuming.

Anyone can be interested in becoming an administrator. I would not myself support Shoesss becoming one at this time and I suspect I'm not alone in that, so don't worry too much about what someone has on their user/talk page. Many people take this place and its "privileges" too seriously anyway as it is. ;)

I understand that you're willing to discuss, and I always appreciate your input, even when it's aimed at me! But my skin is a lot thicker than some others, and I think we're better off trying to discuss aims for the article than aims/motivations of editors, personally.

As for the rest, I expect any efforts to bias the discussion by bringing in external editors will backfire on minority/fringe opinions, as the more eyes/fingers we get on the article, the better the end result will be. At least, that's the theory behind this site.

Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Shoessss ^talk

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The above article has been temporarily protected due to edit warring. Wikipedia has a strict policy against edit warring, and more than three reverts in any 24 hour period is grounds for a block. Continued edit warring after the article is unlocked may result in further page protection or user blocks; nobody wins when that happens, so please take this time to continue participating on the article's talk page, and remember to keep your cool in all discussions. Thank you. Kafziel ^Talk 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoesss, you want comments on your editing? Well, candidly: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And then there's AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Along with AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hope this helps. :)Simplemines 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your input Simplemines. Your way with the English language is astonishing. • ShoesssS ^Talk

Your envy is touching, Shoesie. I'm still waiting for the independent verification that you have more than "two brain cells in (your) head."

I'm also curious. You say you're married and you have kids? No, my question isn't how much you had to pay to import a bride from Russia; it's how do you spend SO much time on WP and still work. Oh, my mistake. You never did say you actually had a job.

Boy, those Russian brides! They'll do ANYTHING to stay in the US!

Simplemines 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say Simplemines some of us are born with just plain old good luck. Grateful to say, I am one of them. Have a great day. • ShoesssS ^Talk

Thought you may want to read up on this.

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.

The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs three reverts on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".^[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Take care. Shoessss |  Chat  12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shoesie. I assume the 3R applies to you as well. The discussion is on the article's discussion page. Do you need directions on how to get there? Please let me know and I'll send you a link.Simplemines (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]