Talk:Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale

Vandalism

Why are you not following the chart's structure? Why are you removing Mr. Brown from the chart? This is Vandalism! Please stop and explain what you are trying to accomplish before you're reported.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert article and discuss an proposed changes here. Your edits DO NOT make sense. Articles will discuss subject. Keep all blurbs short. If there is no article for subject, then extend blurb, however, do not link subject to an article that is not written for him. I am asking you kindly to dialogue and stop making bad edits.--XLR8TION (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's note and moving forward

Hi XLR8TION, not sure if you read the administrator's note regarding our issue. The administrator protected the page from editing for one week. The administrator's note reads as follows:

"This is a simple content dispute. I see no "vandalism", and the photo has an explicit claim of PD. To avoid blocking one or the other, or both, I have protected the page for a week. MDEVER802, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. The expectation is that both editors will come to a consensus before continuing the edit war."

I should have discussed the editing before I did it and I take responsibility for that. Can we move forward now?

How about this?

1) I will add the picture again since it's established that it is in the public domain 2) I will add some more detail to the entries (not as much as I did before). 3) I will no longer link an inmate to an article that is not specifically written for him or her.

Can we agree to that? MDEVER802 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• • You can move forward by following traditional guidelines that are commonly found throughout this site. I have worked on this article and feel that the template and design reflects the clean, concise look most articles are known for. Therefore, to avoid future edit warring, I propose the following:

(1) Keep blurbs short. Articles will discuss subject notability. No need to tell their life story if they already have an article. If they don't have an article, elaborate on their notability BUT DON'T GO OVERBOARD. Keep it short and sweet as they say.
(2) Do not add hyperlinks to the site. Keep all references to the BOP website as references.
(3) If you are unsure about something, ASK! Questions are ok, but don't bully another editor or become a rogue editor. You are stealing time that I can use to write new articles or make other ones better.
(4)Follow templates for lists on this site and do not create new ones. Simplicity goes a long way.

If you can follow these requests to avoid edit warring, than we all can get along. Otherwise, edit warring will continue.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Regarding photo, do not add photo until you can properly format it to accomodate an infobox. The way you posted it the last time did not work. As another editor to help you with formatting.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused...are you a site administrator? MDEVER802 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• • No, I am not. I am simply an editor who cares about articles that I have created or managed in order to assure that the article can grow in a constructive manner.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked because based on your messages it seems like you think you are. I think you're being a bully. Once again, I did not remove any information from the article. The administrator, Kuru, pointed out that my additions were not vandalism as you alleged and that the photo was in the public domain. MDEVER802 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • BULLY? I would refrain from using baseless insults. I am not the rogue editor who refused to discuss changes on topic's talk page. If there is anyone who can be labeled a bully, it would be you. Please do not ever use that label on me ever again.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have referred to me as a bully, a rogue and a vandal. MDEVER802 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your unconstructive edits, and discuss on this page before I file another grievance. Communication is key. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you ask for a truce last week? Did you read my proposal (4 points)? Why are you starting this edit war again? --XLR8TION (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How did my latest edits violate your proposal? The photo I used fit in the infobox and I put significantly fewer details in the chart than before. In addition, I did not use hyperlinks. MDEVER802 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to go ahead with my changes then. MDEVER802 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not provided a response to unconstructive edit suggestions. DO NOT revert article as you are looking for a third edit war. All blurbs should be short as main purpose of wikilinks is to lead reader to main article. All your other edits are unconstructive and non-useful. Please stop being antagonist and work on other articles that you feel you are contributing something useful. As for this article, I will challenge your highly unconstructive edits. Blurbs remain short. Period. Structure of chart remains the same. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop provokinmg me! I have repeatedly told you not to use copyrighted photos and stop with your unconstructive edits. I will report you.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I have not agreed to NO COMPROMISE! Do not put words in my mouth and do not revert. Your edits are terrible and your use of a copyrighted photo is illegal.--XLR8TION (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the situation, explanation for my edits

Hi. As promised, here to explain the reason why I made the edits. Firstly, regarding the image. As work of the United States Government, it indeed is in the public domain (see this article for more info). As for the summaries in the article, they seem perfectly fine to me. They are not excessively long, and are sourced appropriately. Remember, we are here for the readers. It's helpful to have a basic overview in an article, and while wikilinks do exist, it's not reasonable to expect readers to navigate to another long article just to get a small piece of information that they are looking for. For example, the entry in this article on Don Siegelman just states "Former Governer of Alabama" - and the reader must go to that article to find out exactly why they were incarcerated. Completely unnecessary and a waste of the time of the reader. A short summary here is much more informative. Thus, I agree with the bulk of the changes that were made to this article. If you do disagree, could you please explain why you feel that we should make it more difficult for readers to find information about a topic? Article length isn't an issue here - it's a stub, and the blurbs added were short, and informative - not massive sentences. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed and agree with Steven Zhang.

XLR8TION: You don't WP:OWN the article of course. MDEVER802 has just as much right to their views as you have to yours. You're doing your best to engage with them though! :-)

I think you both have your hearts in the right place. You need to work together to make this the best article possible. Both of you need to reach agreement on what that means.

Here's some hopefully constructive tips to try out, see if they work! :

• Hmm, while I don't think it is constructive to say things like "I agreed to NO COMPROMISE", you could formulate that as "That's not quite what I was thinking of, perhaps we could take the article in *this* direction?". Don't say or hint that you're unwilling to compromise. That quickly leads to bad faith, you see.
• As for eg, your point 2) , perhaps MDEVER802 doesn't understand references yet? (MDEVER802: Do you?) Or maybe they have a different view on how things ought to work.

  Rather than saying

  • "Do not add hyperlinks to the site. Keep all references to the BOP website as references.",

  change that into an open question:

  • eg: "I wonder why you changed some of the <ref> tags into [external links]. Was that by accident, or do you have a particular philosophy there?"

  That way, you're not pushing MDEVER802 into the defensive, and you get useful data back. This way, it becomes very easy to reach Consensus, or you get a chance to teach the other editor something they didn't know yet (if necessary)

• Finally, *always* answer another person's questions. Saying I have not provided a response to unconstructive edit suggestions, does not really show you as Acting in good faith to reach consensus, in my book. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be for you, if others didn't reply to you if you asked them a question on wikipedia?

Once again, you clearly mean well, so I'm not angry at you or anything. Just providing some tips to prevent things getting so heated next time. :-)

On to MDEVER802:

• MDEVER802 seems to already be using some of these techniques. The one thing they could perhaps do better is they could have asked another friendly editor to come look earlier on in the process. That never hurts, and sometimes helps! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! I loved Kim's suggestions and Steven's explanation and agree with both of you guys. Kim: While I certainly am pretty new at this and have a lot to learn, I do understand how to make references, meaning I use the <ref> </ref> thing. I included the hyperlinks with the prisoner numbers to make it more convenient for the reader and I think it looks better, but no big deal. I definitely never wanted this to become so mean-spirited. I'd love to hear more suggestions anytime! Thanks again! MDEVER802 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope that XLR8TION and you can work it out. Postscript: I fixed the ref tags by adding <nowiki> tags. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope we can too. MDEVER802 (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving page to Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale

I'd like to do this because the name of the prison discussed in this article is "Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale." The Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale (FCC Oakdale) is the complex which contains FCI Oakdale and FDC Oakdale. I'd like to make separate articles for FCC Oakdale and FDC Oakdale. MDEVER802 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes' metadata

I updated footnote's metadata (except for that of to NYTimes articles behind paywall). MDEVER802, please make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia:Citing sources § Variation in citation methods and try to follow the page's footnotes' format when adding new sources. I would also ask you to update the metadata of those two paywalled NYTimes' articles you seem to have access to. Feel free to remove {{linkrot}} from the article once done. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"There is NO discussion on page"

Errr, ok, sure. What are the 3 sections above this one? <scratches head> Am I seeing things? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable Inmates

This is to propose removing the Notable Inmates section from this article. The inmates listed are incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale (FCI Oakdale), which is a specific part of the Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale (FCC Oakdale). The list is already included in the FCI Oakdale article, so including the same list in this article is redundant and inaccurate. MDEVER802 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120621075516/http://www.bop.gov:80/locations/institutions/oax/index.jsp to http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oax/index.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)