Talk:Charles Karel Bouley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Here we go again...

Just a heads-up...an anonymous someone from a Long Beach, CA IP address is making the same changes to the Karel article that Karel himself made a while back. My wager is that it is, once again, Karel himself. Good grief...what is it about "conflict of interest" and "against Wikipedia policy" is NOT getting through to him? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here we go again. The above person has been making edits for several years with varying degrees of veracity and outright lies. Simple harassment. Your policy:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

She has a personal vendetta since being banned from Karel's chat room for spurious remarks. Her POV is NOT neutral. Her "conflict of interest" is again a personal vendetta. I am making this complaint again of my own personal volition. I ask AGAIN that this person who has been consistently violation Wiki's policy with NO repercussions be stopped. Enough already!!

JoyDiamond (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest both of you tread carefully. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I've thought about it, FD, the more I take umbrage with half of your "warning" being directed at me. I've done nothing wrong, nor have I done anything with any intention other than keeping the integrity of this article - just like any and all Wikipedia articles I edit. I don't appreciate your tone and I especially don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith here. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as JoyDiamond's unfounded accusations against me are concerned - I have no conflict of interest nor vendetta in regard to Karel. I frankly couldn't care less about Karel. I do, however, care about Wikipedia, the accuracy of its content, and that it be encyclopedic in nature (no matter how uncomplimentary the truth may be) and not turned into a fan page for those who see themselves as important celebrities. The Karel article is one of dozens on my watchlist - when it's changed, I see it right away (just like the dozens of other articles on my watchlist) I am an established Wikipedia editor who has not only made over 2000 edits (since I first came here in 2006) in established articles, but who has created articles of substance and made significant edits to those already created. JoyDiamond, OTOH, comes here only to make changes to Karel's article and make snide comments about me. You do the math...

As far as being banned from Karel's chat room - good grief - that happened nearly four years ago. Does JoyDiamond seriously believe that because I was banned from an online chat room four years ago that I am angry at Karel because of it and *that's* why I edit his article? FYI...I live in the real world. Maybe Joy needs a reality check to see if she is. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That you take umbrage with my warning is of no concern. The intent was to head off yet another edit war slash argument, as so often seems to happen on this page. I continue to suggest that you both tread carefully, and to clarify suggest that you both halt the personal attacks and insults. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"That you take umbrage with my warning is of no concern" It should be of concern to you. As with all established Wikipedia editors, I am just as valuable to Wikipedia as you are. Furthermore, isn't it customary in Wikipedia to be respectful of other editors and Assume Good Faith? From you comments to me in the past and currently, I believe you have continually assumed bad faith regarding my edits in this article. I would appreciate it if you would - for lack of a better term - knock it off. You don't own this article, I don't own this article. You're on the vandalism team, but there's been no vandalism here and frankly, since you're not a Wikipedia administrator your "warnings" really have no meaning that I can see other than for your own posturing purposes. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

KFI, Andrew's Death, etc.

That entire section has problems, and needs to be rewritten. I don't have time to do so at the moment, so am summarizing here. Someone else can make the edits, or I'll take care of it after work.

Andrew's initial cause of death was listed as pulmonary embolism, while the autopsy two days later said he died of a heart attack due to arteroscelorotic cardio vascular disease. http://www.ocweekly.com/2003-03-27/news/dr-kooshian-vs-the-gay-community/

Their program on KFI did end at that point, for obvious reasons. Yet I don't see any indication they were fired. Karel continued to work at KFI for a year, at which point he was indeed fired. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bouley/my-ground-zero-of-fear_b_31399.html

Also, here's a fresh link to the Amanda Bronstad article, which Joy removed, for some reason. Perhaps because the previous link was broken? http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Surviving+partner+in+gay+couple+can+sue+after+revision+of+law-a0131365043

-FeralDruid (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the "firing" citation, and put the Bronstad citation back in. I'll rewrite the section later today. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have edited cause of death to say "heart attack" per the autopsy (referenced in the Moxley article). I have further removed the firing comment in regards to 2001, as it's unclear that the two were actually fired at that point. If management was indeed moving them to another station, I'm not convinced "fired" is the right terminology. I have, however, retained the 2002 firing, per Karel's HuffPo article. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! The autopsy said "heart attack"? Really...? I sincerely doubt it. Coroners use offical medical terminology - "heart attack" is not medical terminology, but a layman's term. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Karel himself mentioned on several occasions "His partner Andrew was taken by AIDS." 2pumpchump (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts need to be verifiable to be included in Wikipedia. Greater care must be taken with BLP articles.Seaphoto^Talk 22:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wattage

The wattage of these stations aren't relevant to the article. The stations are cross-linked to their own entries, should users want more information on the stations in question. -FeralDruid (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Joy, you can use other citations on the page as examples of how to include a citation. Also, look at WP:CITE and WP:CT. -FeralDruid (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest round of bickering

Look, this has got to stop. The endless bickering, the accusations of harassment between Kelly and Joy, the sarcasm... it does not help!

Karel, I have told you before that there is a conflict of interest in editing "your" article. There are situations in which the subject of an article can edit (WP:BLPEDIT and WP:AUTO#IFEXIST), but in general, concerns by the subject should be brought up on the talk page. And personally, if you're going to do so, I'd rather you use your registered Iamkarel account instead of an anonymous IP address, so the discussion is clearly identified as you.

Joy, I've spoken with you before over WP:POV and sourcing your edits. Please keep these prior discussions in mind. At times, it appears as though you're editing this article on Karel's behalf. When editing this article, you need to set aside your friendship in favor of cold, hard fact.

Kelly, I don't even know how to address you, because no matter what I say, you're going to argue. So frankly, I'm not even going to bother. I'm tired of it. Hell, even an attempt to stave off another round of bickering between you and Joy only resulted in more arguing. I just don't understand where this anger comes from, or why you feel the need to address other editors with sarcasm and insults. It's not productive. -FeralDruid (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, FD, that the arguing has to stop. I also agree that the COI edits have to stop. I further agree that Karel needs to stop dictating edits to the article through others. I agree that JoyDiamond is welcome to edit as long as the edits are not in lieu of Karel editing, that the edits are well referenced and she doesn't add stuff that would be found on a fan-page. But please, FD...don't assume bad faith when it comes to how I will respond to you and why I have made the edits and undo revisions in this article (or any Wikipedia article, for that matter). It's unfair.

It is my strong personal opinion that Karel is trying to clean out this article of what he sees as the "bad" or "uncomplimentary" stuff - no matter if it is true and referenced. Let me state once again, I am here in Wikipedia because I am interested in seeing Wikipedia becoming as reliable and accurate an online source as possible - this is clear from my bio statement on my Wikipedia page. Let me further state that if anything in the Karel article is wrong, then let someone bring proof through reliable and citable references that show those references to be wrong and let the correct information replace it - IF there is a reference. This is exactly why I axed the info about his claimed work as a photographer - if a reference can't be provided, then get rid of it altogether. Everything else - even the uncomplimentary stuff Karel wants removed - is referenced. If it's referenced, it should stay, correct?

Yes, I have been snide and sarcastic to JoyDiamond and Karel - who wouldn't be after being erroneously told time and again that your purpose in editing a particular article is due to your intent to cause personal harm and inflict pain? I'm sick of the false allegations and finger-pointing all over being banned from a chat room incident I haven't thought about in nearly four years. And yes - I state unequivocably that I would like for that to stop, too. But let me make one thing clear - I'm sick of it all, but I am NOT angry. Allow me to state for the last time - please stop insisting that I edit the Karel article because of something that happened four years ago - it's plainly NOT true. Okay - now that's out of my system and I hope it's out of Joy and Karel's as well.

I have been sarcastic with you, FD, because I have felt you've been pretty sarcastic with me and, frankly, because I feel you have taken their side against me (especially with your "warning" post) when I have done nothing to deserve that kind of treatment. Again, all I'm doing is editing for content, references, and NPOV. I also revert edits when I believe the article is being sanitized of what Karel or his fans see as uncomplimentary. Am I perfect when I do this? Certainly not. Do I make mistakes in editing? Of course I do. Look, I have an idea - Can we just start with a clean slate and *both of us* utilize the Assume Good Faith policy where each of us is concerned? I would certainly prefer it. What say you, FeralDruid? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A Request

It is much easier to follow changes when editors make one edit rather than a series of successive edits. Please don't take this as a criticism, and it is not aimed at any one editor, just a request to use the preview function as much as possible during one editing session. Thanks!Seaphoto^Talk 06:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...unfortunately, I'm guilty of doing that more than I would like. Even when I use the preview fuunction, oftentimes I will look at what was just done and it just doesn't look quite right - forcing me to re-edit what I just edited. I appreciate the constructive criticism and reminder, however. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lock

That was done at my request.

I warned the two of you a few days ago to tread lightly. One took offense, the other did not. The point of the "warning" was to head off yet another round of bickering. Unfortunately, it seems to have done little good. History has shown than when one of you edits this article, the other is soon to follow, along with repeat reversions, arguments, and accusations of bias. I routinely let edits from both of you go by, but the two of you, together, just can't seem to edit this page without a fight.

As I've said before, I'm tired of it.

I've reached the point where I no longer give a damn about this article, or any attempt to maintain NPOV, as it's just become too much of a headache. Hopefully the lock will give the two of you a chance to consider what's best for Wikipedia in this matter, even if it means unwatching the article and letting others deal with it from here on out. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've also filed a dispute resolution request on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Current life section

I put current life items in chronological order and re-inserted "since his firing from KGO" for a a few reasons...first, it was a major event in his life and it was national news (maybe international news?)...secondly, it shows that he now has a life after KGO...lastly, it's a good segue sentence and, IMO, should remain. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was a major event in his life and was mentioned several times previously. It is REDUNDANT. CURRENTLY, is a better segue without using semantics in a negative way. It is NEUTRAL which is WIKI policy, AND Chronological!!! IMHO the paragraph should be reverted to my previous edit which gives the information neutrally about his current life. BTW,his divorce was final yesterday if you would like to be the first to break the news. Incidentally, FIVE citations mention the word FIRED also. WE got it. He was fired. TWICE. Enough already. JoyDiamond (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pinhead"

If Bouley was, indeed, called a "pinhead" by Bill O'Reilly on two separate occasions and there is a reference for this, fine - but usually, in the "Pinheads and Patriots" segment of his show, someone is labeled "pinhead" once - and then in the days following he may refer back to his previous pinhead declaration - that doesn't mean he has made a new declaration. If there is a reliable, valid reference out there which states otherwise, bring it. But it shouldn't be tacked onto the date of the first "pinhead" declaration - that makes for a bad and confusing edit. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That he has been pinhead twice, I thought was interesting. It was awhile back. I will have to ask Bill (O'Reilly) for a reference for a citation. You are right. Not a great edit. JoyDiamond (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Karel to Bouley

Karel (Charles Raymond Bouley Jr.) is the name by which he is known, by which he has ALWAYS been known. Rather than being called Junior, he has always been called "Karel," The CZECH translation of Charles, part of his heritage.

Many celebrities are known by ONE name: Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner, is widely known by his stage name "Sting" and is referred to as such in Wiki. Paul David Hewson,is most commonly known by his stage name Bono, and is consistently referred to in Wiki as "Bono". Consider also Cher, Madonna and Prince; contrary to the statement made in the September 25th edit, all of these people are referred to by their first name or nicknames AKA STAGE names. Although Karel is not at the level of Stardom of the aforementioned, his childhood nickname became his "Stage name". Would Prince's name be replaced with NELSON?? That WOULD be funny. Throughout his Wiki cite, Nelson, "The Artist formerly known as Prince" would have to be included!

"Karel" is Karel and that is how HE is known and recognized throughout the Radio Community in this country, his Friends, and Fans.

Precedent has already been set and proven. To be edited soon. JoyDiamond (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged precedent or not, it is a Wikipedia standard to use surnames in an article (as you have already been told by another editor yesterday). See WP:SURNAME. Using a first name indicates a personal relationship with the subject of the article and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. As you have also been told more than once, Wikipedia is not to be used as a fan page. Secondly, Bouley is not ONLY known by Karel professionally. The book he wrote was written by Charles Karel Bouley and is listed as such at the Library of Congress and with booksellers. When he writes for the Huffington Post, it is as Charles Karel Bouley. There are numerous blog entries of his which have been picked up by other online blogs that refer to him as Charles Karel Bouley. The title of the Wikipedia article is Charles Karel Bouley. None of these sources refer to him solely as Karel - and obviously he doesn't either. Unless he has legally changed his name to "Karel", no longer uses "Bouley" at all (which he does as evidenced by the above examples), or has suddenly become royalty (see WP:SURNAME), there is no valid reason why Wikipedia should refer to him as "Karel" in the Charles Karel Bouley article. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I would have disagreed, but checking the facts you cited indicates that he currently using both names - one mostly for radio, the other when he is writing. If he starts using Karel for all his commentary, I think that it would be fair to change the article title, in the same way that Madonna or Snoop Dogg are listed.Seaphoto^Talk 03:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly encyclopedic. Please discuss here. Black Kite 09:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is my belief that JoyDiamond's reason for being here from the beginning is to whitewash the article and make it devoid of anything that could be seen as negative (note - this statement is not meant to be a personal attack, rather just a stating of my opinion based on a series of edits and personal statments from JoyDiamond). The fact is, there is a lot of what can be seen as negative in Bouley's radio career, and this is evidenced in the content of the article. I don't see how it is Wikipedia's responsibility to make a BLP (or any biography, for that matter) appear more balanced in negative and positive aspects just to make the subject of the article feel better or make the subject more appealing to possible future employers (Wikipedia isn't a resume service, after all).

Secondly, editors to this article should be including referenced truth, rather than the truth as seen through the eyes of Bouley and his friend/professional associate, JoyDiamond. As far as the statement regarding KFI moving Bouley and Howard to another time-slot because of ratings, I believe that the Variety mention of the reasoning behind the move should stay, and that the following two links should be added as a reference as well[1][2]. Both links uphold the Variety reference that the reason Hendrie was placed in that time slot was due to ratings. I don't know how the statement can be more well-referenced and backed up as being the truth. My concern here is that JoyDiamond continues to insist that things "didn't happen that way" (same with Bouley - see his edits to my talk page, if interested). Another Wikipedia standard is No Original Research as well as using a reliable, published source, not heresay or personal opinion. Many of the edits made by JoyDiamond have been derived from information she has received directly from Bouley (which brings us back to my first point above).

My hope is that this article no longer contains anything resembling personal opinion, original research, and/or POV. As has been stated ad nauseum, this article is not meant to be a fan-page or advertisement. I have always edited this article with that in mind and will continue to do so. And one side note: I really wish JoyDiamond would stop shouting by using all caps so much in her edit summaries - IMO, it shows an unnecessary aggressiveness and anger that is not conducive to productive editing, effective persuasion and/or peaceful resolution between editors (see WP:SHOUT and WP:ALLCAPS).

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bouley to Karel

Thank you Black Kite for protecting the page. Yes, I do know Charles Karel Bouley. I will be the first to admit that my first edits, two years ago, to Wikipedia were not up to standards and can appear to be sanitizing. For this I sincerely apologize. I was not aware of Wiki standards and the many guidelines and rules that govern the Wiki community. Feraldruid has been most strict albeit kind in his instructions to me and educating me in the use of Wiki. I owe him a vote of confidence and thanks.

Yes, I do know Charles Karel Bouley, AKA Karel. We have a friendly business relationship. I have been witness to most items referenced on his page. I realize now that knowing what happened and referencing it properly are two entirely different things. I have not made many edits until recently when IMHO the article evolved into a nitpicking and continually exacerbated cynical piece concerning Karel. The bona fide truth is negative enough in itself. When using semantics they can be manipulated into a totally negative tone or presented in a neutral manner as I believe is Wiki's standard.

Karel has made HUGE mistakes. All needs to be presented, the good, the bad and the ugly in a neutral, fully cited, manner without prejudice in any direction; The simple truth. Not as I know it or as Kelly presumes or assumes. Nitpicking should also be avoided at all costs.

The statement regarding KFI moving Karel and Andrew in a trade of time slots with Phil Hendrie to accommodate his National Feed, is properly referenced. This can be verified with KFI, if you care to do so, "Attention Mr. Hall." I don't understand why "The Daily Breeze", a significant enough publication to have it's own Wiki article, is not a proper citation. Living in SoCaL, I find it to be a far more reliable published source than the more well known LA Times. The Daily Breeze comes far closer to being encyclopedic than the Times. Yes, it needs to be edited, I apologize for not having done that immediately. Andrew Howard's Obituary is about Andrew and gives no reference to firing of any kind. It is an inaccurate piece about Andrew's death, not about Karel.

I apologize for using caps as emphasis, not shouting. Time out.

I am unfairly and unfoundedly accused of making edits "derived from information she has received directly from Bouley." Kelly has no personal knowledge, no foundation or basis on which to judge my relationship with Karel. At no time have I taken direction or instruction from Karel regarding any edit in Wikipedia; Anytime, ever! As I have no influence over Karel's edits neither has he any influence over mine. The only discussion has been my request that he stop editing.

Using Karel's name is no way an indication of a personal relationship. That is just silly. In his heyday, millions of people listened to Karel and all referred to him as "Karel", so it is perfectly appropriate in an encyclopedia. His pen name is Charles Karel Bouley, used when he is writing, not performing. The KXRA site, the KUDO site the Rrazz room, and formerly KFI and KGO all refer to him as "Karel" his stage name. These are two entirely different venues, albeit the same person but not persona. Please see the discussion concerning this, I particularly like the reference to Prince! Karel has many personae, some of which I am honestly not fond of at all. persona: 1 : a character assumed by an author in a written work. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persona

Those of you who would judge me or my edits from two years ago, please cease and desist. Give me credit for growth and education, particularly my IPOV. I have apologized for my mistakes and would prefer to move forward as I already have. I welcome any advice and help in settling this matter. I would also ask that Kelly stop excoriating me, in her own words: "it shows an unnecessary aggressiveness and anger that is not conducive to productive editing, effective persuasion and/or peaceful resolution between editors."

Lastly, I request that Kelly stop cutting and pasting every single communication between myself and other Wiki personnel. Such obsession is highly disconcerting and feels like stalking. Frankly, it is none of her business and has become tedious and boring to all.

I am sure there will be further communication and I humbly welcome any assistance.

I am concerned that next we shall see the above next posted on Kelly's User page.

Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a fair comment. It is hard to edit an article dispassionately when you know the subject, but we should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise. The best thing if you see something that upsets you is give it a little time - there are a few of us watching this article and are ready to step in if something egregious is done. A lot of the tension is from the quick back and forth and rapid successive edits that are hard to follow. Let a little time pass by, collect your thoughts, verify your references, and then edit in the calmest manner possible. That is the road to Wikihealth Grasshopper LOL.Seaphoto^Talk 03:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, AGF is great, and that is great advice, Seaphoto. I'm a big fan of Adam Carolla. He often calls himself "Ace". That doesn't mean the article should say that- the more formal name is Adam or (especially) Carolla. tedder (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one word names like "Elvis," "Prince," "Bono," or "Jewel" are A list folks who are easily recognizable. Karel is not of the celbrity character to fit in with folks like this. He is somewhat obscure small market radio personality.68.127.183.162 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

He meets the notability standard for Wikipedia, which is all that matters. If he consistently used only the name of Karel, that is what the article would be called,in order to facilitate people seeking information on him. We are, after all, editing an encyclopedia in the hope that it is as useful and accurate as possible.Seaphoto^Talk 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

I would request a discussion for deletion of this page, based upon wikipedia guidelines of NPOV and disruptive edit warring. Any objective additions are quickly reverted or deleted, and is dominated by two parties. Secondly, having a page for Karel does not seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Regisfugit (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by the best interest of Wikipedia, but Karel Bouley has met the notability standard. There are times when conflicting edits are made, but there are a number of editors watching this page, and the normal mechanisms to prevent abuse seem to be working just fine. Even if there were not, that would not be reason to delete an article, as by that criteria just about any controversial article would be subject to deletion.--Seaphoto^Talk 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Regisfugit is a troll, Seaphoto. I checked into a couple of his/her edits and apparently, he/she has been here for all of one day, causing some vandalism in his/her wake. <sigh> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those too, but since the comment was on this page I felt it was best to answer it here - not everyone takes the time to check. And,it never hurts to be reasonable :=)--Seaphoto^Talk 05:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reworked KFI timeline and references

I reworked the KFI timeline and references, making corrections to the information surrounding the replacing and re-replacing and re-replacing again of Bouley and Howard (with Phil Hendrie and John and Ken). It was all really quite confusing, but now seems to be accurate according to sources retrieved and added as references in the article. The changes also reflect a more positive attitude toward Bouley and Howard and their time with KFI. Also...I have removed the appellate court statements and am currently working on a new section surrounding the wrongful death suit and Bouley's subsequent victory in court - it's only temporarily missing and will hopefully be replaced and reworked for more completeness by this evening. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up on the appellate court section...

I did replace what was in the Radio Talk-Show Host section into a seperate section, but have no time to work on it at the moment. If someone else would care to tackle it (for a more complete rendering of the significant events surrounding the case), knock yourself out! ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring

To Black Kite RE: Charles Karel Bouley

It is with great trepidation that I address the fact that Karel's article will be unlocked today. Nothing has changed. There has been no discussion. I believe the edit war will begin again. Although I am no longer a personal friend of Karel's, my IPOV will be constantly challenged. If you go back and look at the article as presented over a year ago, you will see that the intent and tone has been changed to an article about Karel's being fired rather than an encyclopedic entry. I will endeavor to edit to make this a neutral article, with the facts presented accurately and impartially.

Although she vehemently denies this, the fact is that Kelly Seibecke is well know in various chats for Karel bashing and has turned the article into a negative, not neutral, commentary. Karel has accomplished enough negative news himself, there is no need for antipathetic enhancement. Kelly herself has admitted she found the chronology confusing. She nitpicks on inconsequential and dubious entries, i.e. it really is not necessary to explicate which of his parents is the father and which is the mother. Rather than work with me, she engages in the personal venomous attacks for which she is well known. (Google her.)

The entire article needs to be rewritten, neutrally and impartially, refering back to said article previous to November, 2008.

I will be the first to admit, I have a lot to learn about the intricacies of Wiki. FeralTalk and Seaphoto have kindly helped me in the past. I am most willing to work with them or other editors and/or admins to bring up the quality of this article. I have requested such assistance with no significant response. I am willing to write a new draft of the article and submit it for your approval. I have proper and significant references but have yet to master that art. Any help will be much appreciated. I would strongly suggest that Kelly be blocked from editing this particular article. She has made valuable contributions to many articles with her multifaceted interests and talents. Her lack of IPOV in the case of Karel, for all intents and purposes, is non-negotiable.

I look forward to your response and suggest the lock on the article be extended. JoyDiamond (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDiamond (talk • contribs)

Joy - what the heck is wrong with you? Why do you insist on being so negative? You whine about there having been no discussion, but exactly what have you done to *promote* positive discussion? Absolutely nothing. You take the first opportunity you have to slam me and make yet another personal attack against me. Why have you once again violated Wikipedia policy in the area of assume good faith? Why have you once again violated Wikipedia policy in the area of outing? It's exactly this kind of attitude and behavior from you that contributed to getting this article locked both times. Personally, I have had enough from you - I have reported you to Administration for the above violation. Oh, and as far as you no longer being a "personal friend of Karel"...personal friendship is not the only criteria for having conflict of interest. You're still one of Karel's cheerleaders/promoters on his "Circle K" Facebook page - that qualifies you as having conflict of interest. Enough, already. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack, Wikipedia Policy

Posting of personal information What is considered to be a personal attack?

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note... that speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDiamond (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC) JoyDiamond (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)