User talk:Sdodell
Welcome!
Hello, Sdodell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Katr67 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Responded to your concerns[edit]
Hi, just wanted to let you know I posted a response to your concerns on Aboutmovies' talk page. -Pete (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound flip or mean, but are you calling your own mother a liar? "I was an operator, at one of the old switchboards at Sheppard Field, an Air Force base—Air Force training base, it wasn’t a flight school—had been constructed just north of Wichita Falls, and it was growing by leaps and bounds. In fact, it had been started when I was working in the office building where I saw all of these guys in uniform come." She told someone she was interviewing that she worked there. Or to go with the standard cross, was she lying then or is she lying now? And that really goes for some of the other contentions now being made. She clearly spelled out that she felt discriminated against when she joined the court of appeals, but hey, read the entire transcript of the interview and you can see for yourself. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon, AM. Nobody's calling anybody a liar. It does appear that there's a little confusion about what was said in the interview, but surely that's a simple mistake, and one we can get past. Characterizing it as an accusation won't serve any purpose besides dialing up the drama. I think we all share the goal of assuring the article is accurate and well-sourced; can we just keep the focus on that? -Pete (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pete, it was sort of implied by the "The interview cited does not say that she worked at Shepherd Field (we have checked it)" bit, which implies that I must not have represented in the article what the interview states, which I take a little personally. OK, that came after I reverted the original change and then quoted said interview on the article's talk page which went unanswered. This editor then reverted without so much as an edit summary, and then followed that by removing the red links (which the people all pass BIO, and one just needed a redirect). As I said in my edit summary, there may be errors that need to be corrected, but the bit about the Shepard Field and facing discrimination on the OR Ct. of Appeals are not ones that are incorrect. Anyone can read through the entire interview on the ABA's website, just keep increasing the number in the URL. As to the second liar bit, I thought the editor might get that joke as it is your standard impeachment line we all learn in evidence class. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget that new contributors often don't have the slightest idea how to find a talk page, or understand why edit summaries are important. There's a learning process for everyone. But apart from that -- are you really going to let your sense of personal injury drive your response? I'm surprised -- I've seen you weather far worse attacks on your integrity and come out fine. It looks to me like there's an opportunity to engage with a knowledgeable, good faith contributor here, and maybe help her find a productive and satisfying way to engage with the project -- but if you see it differently, I'll let the two of you sort it out. -Pete (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pete, for me, jury is still out on this user. They only edit this article, and the early edits were rather self-serving of the subject ("1st Woman" on both courts and not inline with any of our other succession "rules" if you will followed by making sure we had the full title of the autobio). We have no verification as of yet that they are related to the subject or are acting on their behalf. And back to the newness factor, you are right about finding the talk page and edit summaries, but this editor does know about and has used edit summaries and found their way to use the "undo" feature, plus found my talk page to leave a note, all after I pointed out the quote from the interview on the article's talk page. So, I am less inclined to AGF at this point. And its not so much the personal injury, but the continued instance that not only did she work at the airfield - at least according to her own words - but that the interview did not back that up. If this editor wants to go "ooops, sorry, it is there so lets move on and figure this out" then fine. But if they cannot even concede that it is in the interview, then there are too many hurdles to cover to be worth anyone's time as WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV will become far too much to comprehend. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget that new contributors often don't have the slightest idea how to find a talk page, or understand why edit summaries are important. There's a learning process for everyone. But apart from that -- are you really going to let your sense of personal injury drive your response? I'm surprised -- I've seen you weather far worse attacks on your integrity and come out fine. It looks to me like there's an opportunity to engage with a knowledgeable, good faith contributor here, and maybe help her find a productive and satisfying way to engage with the project -- but if you see it differently, I'll let the two of you sort it out. -Pete (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pete, it was sort of implied by the "The interview cited does not say that she worked at Shepherd Field (we have checked it)" bit, which implies that I must not have represented in the article what the interview states, which I take a little personally. OK, that came after I reverted the original change and then quoted said interview on the article's talk page which went unanswered. This editor then reverted without so much as an edit summary, and then followed that by removing the red links (which the people all pass BIO, and one just needed a redirect). As I said in my edit summary, there may be errors that need to be corrected, but the bit about the Shepard Field and facing discrimination on the OR Ct. of Appeals are not ones that are incorrect. Anyone can read through the entire interview on the ABA's website, just keep increasing the number in the URL. As to the second liar bit, I thought the editor might get that joke as it is your standard impeachment line we all learn in evidence class. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon, AM. Nobody's calling anybody a liar. It does appear that there's a little confusion about what was said in the interview, but surely that's a simple mistake, and one we can get past. Characterizing it as an accusation won't serve any purpose besides dialing up the drama. I think we all share the goal of assuring the article is accurate and well-sourced; can we just keep the focus on that? -Pete (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)