Espousesquecido, it was most kind of you to post that nice barnstar to me; it meant a lot to me. I wish you and yours a happy, healthy and joyous New Year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit serves as confirmation that I am requesting usurpation of "Josette" on several wikis, including: en.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, ja.wikipedia.org, nl.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, and zh.wikipedia.org. In most cases (except nl and pl) the account has no contributions. I have already gotten renamed on Commons (see completed request: [1]) and Meta (see completed request: [2]) , and as renames happen I will connect them to Josette which is an SUL account (as is this one, disconnection to rename is OK). If by chance Josette inadvertantly has contributions which are clearly me (during transition it's tricky to make sure you are logged in as the right user) please usurp, those contributions are not important. Epousesquecido ( talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Josette! I usurped ja:User:Josette for you. Thanks for waiting. -- Kanjy ( talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll be working on it. Wandalstouring ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 |
User:Josette has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Well deserved. You're the awesome-est Wikipedian I know, about time everyone else knew too. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One down, 300 to go... Montanabw (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- This ↑ made me laugh out loud! I suggest a nice crystal tumbler half full of some good Johnnie Walker (maybe green label) or Maker's Mark (a little cheaper), usually does the trick for me. If that doesn't strike your fancy, what about a couple of shots of Patron? :) - Josette ( talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Kudos on a terrific image for Giuseppe Abbati. It even shows his eventual assassin beside him (assuming it's the same dog)--Nice find! Ewulp ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, (not sure if it is the same dog) I liked the image because it showed the patch over his right eye. The name of his dog was Cennino? -
Josette (
talk) 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd missed that, apparently the name was Cennino. According to Broude, the dog was selected and purchased for Abbati by Diego Martelli, who felt awful about what happened and later wrote an account of his friend's death. It may be hard to prove that the dog seen in the Boldini painting is Cennino, but it's an unsettling portent either way. Ewulp ( talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the requested move is still pending, and I would like to move it still to Tarpan. When that time frame runs out, I am quite sure a uninvolved admin will undertake that action, it is not my place to do so. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you un-bolded Women in rodeo in the first sentence of its article. I understand bolding the topic in the opening sentence is more or less policy. Maybe I missed something? I'm going to return it to its bolded state until I have information otherwise. Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think "Commentaries" in Rodeo in the United States is better suited to the animal treatment in rodeo article? I don't follow your thinking. Could we Talk? Articles are under construction and tagged with neutrality issues so moving whole sections from one article to another ... well, it probably won't help matters. Your husband Lar has been actively involved behind the scenes on these articles. Our thoughts are with him. Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Your playing some sort of "payback" game. Tit for tat. That's not civil. What we are trying to do is cite material in the Rodeo article per WP policy. Most of the rodeo article appears to be someone's OR and POV. I'm working to improve the article and WP in the process. Are you? Or are you getting all "pointy" and playing the payback game? Your behavior is disruptive. Is your husband using your account? Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 04:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Put yourself in my place. I have been working with others for some time on Rodeo related articles. All of a sudden, you show up, remove a whole section from an article and send it elsewhere. In your opinion, it belongs elsewhere; in my opinion it belongs right where it is. My time should be spent making progress on the article not investigating your disruptive editorializations. As you are new to the articles, please take your concerns to the Talk Page before being "bold" and removing whole sections. Removing whole sections is something for all involved to consider. Is your husband using your account? Thank you.
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that. -
Josette (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this is your SOP, ie, descending on an article, removing whole sections, moving those sections elsewhere on WP, reverting titles because IYO "it's a better title"? Try to imagine what sort of place WP would be if we all engaged in such disruptive behavior. Such behavior makes it very difficult to make progress on an article because it means others must use precious time investigating your editorializations. You're more than welcome to contribute but you're a newcomer to the articles. Don't you think that it might be better to go to the Talk page first and let the community come to a consensus on your concerns? Is your husband using your account?
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- YO! Buttermilk, I've not looked at the articles in question, but I've seen this and the bit on your talk page. You are out of line. Let me offer you a few acronyms;
WP:AGF,
WP:OWN. We have lots more, too, and you'll need to become familiar with them
PDQ.
Jack Merridew 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Buttermilk, in my time on Wikipedia (5+ years) I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself, but I think you are probably making one of the lowliest ugliest attacks I have seen. What do you want? Lar to come to his wife's defence? Josette to dissolve into tears? For all I know, both may happen - both would be excruciatingly embarrassing to witness - as, I suspect, you are well aware! I have not even bothered to look at the edits you are so bothered about, your comments made that unnecessary. So here is some advice from a very experienced editor, who is not her husband, lover or even an sighing admirer: Grow up and shut the fuck up! Is that clear enough for you? Giano ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- YO! Buttermilk, I've not looked at the articles in question, but I've seen this and the bit on your talk page. You are out of line. Let me offer you a few acronyms;
WP:AGF,
WP:OWN. We have lots more, too, and you'll need to become familiar with them
PDQ.
Jack Merridew 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this is your SOP, ie, descending on an article, removing whole sections, moving those sections elsewhere on WP, reverting titles because IYO "it's a better title"? Try to imagine what sort of place WP would be if we all engaged in such disruptive behavior. Such behavior makes it very difficult to make progress on an article because it means others must use precious time investigating your editorializations. You're more than welcome to contribute but you're a newcomer to the articles. Don't you think that it might be better to go to the Talk page first and let the community come to a consensus on your concerns? Is your husband using your account?
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that. -
Josette (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the above and must say I agree with Giano and Jack rather strongly. Buttermilk, I strongly urge you to stop the personal attacks, Wikipedia takes personal attacks very seriously because of the environment required for collaborative editing. If I see comments like this again, it is highly likely I will block you, so this is the only warning you will receive. MBisanz talk 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have recently been warned about personal attacks and the possibility of being blocked. Before that happens, I would like to make my peace with you. I am so sorry about writing to you in a way that libelled your good name as an editor here at WP. I hope you can forgive me. All along I have encouraged others to contribute to the Rodeo articles and when you did I snapped out. I am so sorry. I'm 16 and this is my first real experience with WP outside the classroom. Anyway ... I am so sorry and hope you can forgive me. Sincerely, Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth was spending time in the real world and in the process found some assorted research links that will pass muster in terms of WP:V and such for the articles we were looking at. Check out my talk page here if you think they will work for any of the assorted articles, feel free to toss in stuff as you see fit! I'm pretty much avoiding the animal treatment article altogether, by the way. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Talk:Phar Lap? Cuddy asked for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and I was struck by some familiar feelings about the editor's style that reminded me of some things from the Rodeo flap earlier. You were much more involved than I was though, what do you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. What I know about Phar Lap can be summed up in "He was a thoroughbred racehorse from around Australia." (grins). Beyond that... he was a gelding, so I never really researched him. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
About Phar Lap, do you not think that "Australia's Wonder Horse" is POV, considering the horse was born in New Zealand. Did you know the horse was American owned?. I think breeding is also important in the US too. If a horse is bred in, say Argentina, everyone knows it. Wallie ( talk) 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I do feel it is important to note where the horse was born. I do know an American purchased the horse as a yearling. All that is noted in the article. The horse's entire racing career, which is the most notable part of his life, was in Australia except for his last race which was in Mexico. His death, also very notable, was in the US. This horse was considered "Australian" (because of his racing career) by much of the world at the time. We can't change history. Here is the
New York Times headline from April 6, 1932, at the time of his death
"Phar Lap, Great Australian Race Horse, Dies in West After First American Triumph; PHAR LAP IS DEAD; NOTED RACE HORSE". I am not sure why there is a problem, I think it is all just part of his biography. -
Josette (
talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of like Mel Gibson. Born in America, back in America, but famous in Australia. (However, in his case, not a Gelding...) LOL! Montanabw (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it goes back to the culture of the two countries. Shall we say that Australians are better at marketing themselves (to put it in a nice way). Yes. We can change history. We know the facts. The New York Times didn't. They were told what to write.
Wallie (
talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The New York Times is considered a reliable source, we are not. - Josette ( talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the Phar Lap article. It is probably the most contentious I have worked on. There is more concensus on articles such as Joan of Arc, Napoleon and World War 2. Possibly Paris Hilton is as bad. I might ask for your help there. :) Wallie ( talk) 18:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I deleted a message on my talk page. Another user who had nothing to do it reverted me and put the message back. He said that I am not allowed to remove someone's comments without their premission. Is this really correct? If I passed you a message, I would not be surprised if you deleted it. Wallie ( talk) 07:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your advice. I want to do what is right. However, if someone is criticizing you, it is not very nice. It also gives those who you have current disagreements with (usually unrelated) ammunition. As far as I can see, a talk page is there to pass messages. The guidelines say that you can remove them. I do try to get people to justify why they are defending their position, which I think is incorrect. This makes some upset. When the issue is resolved, I then remove the correspondence as it is often misleading. Wallie ( talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Josette,
With the on going issues with User:Ernest the Sheep in the Phar Lap article I think we may need looking at taken this futher (To the Admin noticeboard) and maybe look at a topic ban or even have a revert limit placed on them. Seems to me that the blocks haven't worked. Bidgee ( talk) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Words like "issues", "ban", "admin". "noticeboard", "blocks" and "limit" are not very helpful. Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly enviroment. We all know Ernest's modus operandi, and he is just one of the "characters" involved - some think I am not perfect either. Some of his ideas are OK. Phar Lap is becoming (was always?) an Australia vs NZ thing, with big voices on both sides. Ernest just needs to learn to "hang tough" within the rules. :) Wallie ( talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update Sorry, Bidgee. I should never have doubted your logic. I take back everything I said in reply to you. You were correct. Thanks. :) Wallie ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Geez Wallie, that's a bit much coming from you. Weren't you banned for incivility only a couple of months ago? Although the evidence of this unfortunate occurrence appears to have disappeared from your talk page. I wonder why that is? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ernest. You should not attack those who are trying to defend you. Your above effort is actually quite nasty, like McCarthyism, which I hate. Wallie ( talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pull the other one Wallie. Who do you think you're kidding? A lot of people are well aware of your own modus operandi, so spare me the patronising claptrap. Learn to "hang tough"?? At least when I get a ban I cop it sweet. I don't whine and bleat about it like some do, eh Wallie? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't find it funny at all.
Wallie (
talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Wallie, no one is laughing at your expense. You guys should meet and have a beer. (assuming you're both old enough) -
Josette (
talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I know you mean well. :)
Wallie (
talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I am sorry you found what I said offensive, but do you not think I might have been offended by what you said? If that is what you call defending me, then I would much prefer it if you didn't.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was definitely not trying to offend you. Quite the opposite. I was surprised when you attacked me, when I was just trying to defend you. I made it plain that I don't like bans. In actual fact I find that quite a few admins abuse their power, are childish and ban people sometimes "just for the hell of it". Wallie ( talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I am sorry you found what I said offensive, but do you not think I might have been offended by what you said? If that is what you call defending me, then I would much prefer it if you didn't.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I know you mean well. :)
Wallie (
talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Wallie, no one is laughing at your expense. You guys should meet and have a beer. (assuming you're both old enough) -
Josette (
talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't find it funny at all.
Wallie (
talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you guys take this spat somewhere other than poor Josette's talk page, unless you want her to put you both in "time out" or something? (smiling and applying noogies) Montanabw (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or something? Hmmm... - Josette ( talk) 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Good advice. I will keep any of my spat related stuff away from this... hallowed ground? :) Wallie ( talk) 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. You have come up with trumps again! Is there no stopping you? I guess the article is looking OK now, and Ernest should be happy with your references. They support the NZ side. There are plenty of other references available for the Australian fans also. Now we can create a NPOV version. Wallie ( talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- See, if EVERYONE just listened to Josette, there would be world peace! Montanabw (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, could you please stop greasing up to Josette. It's embarrassing. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
Saw that (other, too;) — and I commented to him back on his page, where it belongs. We’ll see where that goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sama-sama, just trying to watch your back. and ready to confront "little shit" behavior ;) -
Josette (
talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- little shite like this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this Fucking
Barnstar for useful contributions to teh wikis and insightful observations about teh workings thereof.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
a juicy slice of pie for Josette |
Presented for moar insightful observations about the true nature of Wikipedia culture and Wikiquette and the littluns whats don'ts gets it.
Enjoy, Jack Merridew 09:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll save it until you can share it with me ;) what will the neighbors think ? - Josette ( talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josette, I am not sure why you are trying to pick a fight today. I am not really interested in perpetuating some unnecessary dispute. If you would like to discuss our differences here, I am willing, or if I can help you with an article, I am always happy to do so. Or if it is best we walk away from each other, that is fine too. I am here to improve Wikipedia (hence my dozens of grammatical and stylistic improvements today) and make editors feel welcome (hence my dozens of welcomes today), not to fight. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then please assume good faith and don't leave disparaging remarks about other peoples comments and don't delete my comments when I try to talk to you. -
Josette (
talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I assume good faith, but to the point of being naive. The one account I replied to today was previously blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock that vote-stacked in AfDs, thinks he has a " mission" to delete articles (note also on the userpage the "Good pages to masturbate to" section and I could list multiple other instances of bizarre or non-serious kinds of edits), and has outright said he " wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia." Thus, ALL of his AfD "votes" are just that: copy and paste either WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, or WP:JNN style of rapid fire non-article specific comments that add nothing to the conversation and reflect no actual consideration of the specific articles being discussed. And again, in three of those five discussions, I had indeed commented prior to his showing up. It gets old for those of us who do try to improve articles to have to contend with such accounts and if we don't point it out or try to engage the accounts in the discussion, the closing admin might not realize that it is part of an indiscriminate "too many articles" deletion campaign rather than some kind of real reflection of the actual article under discussion. Even when I argue to delete, I mention specific policies and source searches (see for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Gaupher Eels, i.e. I do not simply vote by try to add something original to the discussion). Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|
On August 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rix Robinson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- From user:ikip
Did you know you voted "Keep" twice on this AfD? - Josette ( talk) 11:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, but I REALLY appreciate you bringing this to my attention, THANK YOU. I removed the second !vote, and am rather embarrassed, this mistake doesn't help anyone one bit, and it makes me look bad.
Ikip (
talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw in
this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{
Cite web}}. Thank you,
Debresser (
talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll update the article and my outdated templates. - Josette ( talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
Sojourner Truth seems to attract an inordinate amount of juvenile vandalism. Given the incessant amount of vandalism and the corresponding need for reversing and reverting this nonsense, isn't there some official way to provide partial protection to the article, restricting editing to people who have at least signed into the Wikipedia system? Almost all the vandalism comes from anonymous accounts. As the leading defender of the article, are you willing to approach a WP administrator with this request? It seems appropriate to me. Dwalls ( talk) 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize I was the leading defender ;) You're right though, something should be done. I can ask someone tomorrow or please feel free. Thanks. - Josette ( talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Josette - I thought I'd give a little heads-up about Ernest the Sheep's behaviour and the reason for his block. He has been, to put it bluntly, a serious pest on many articles relating to New Zealand culture, especially those where the culture overlaps with Australian culture. He has broken the 3-revert rule more times than I'd care to count, has repeatedly insulted and laid unfounded accusations against numerous good-faith editors (including at least three admins), and has repeatedly made snide and occasionally racist comments about New Zealand editors in general. The harm he has done, in terms of his repeated reversions to incorrect versions of articles, the ill-will (to the extent of trolling) that he has engendered, and his attitude in general, far outweighs any good he has done on Wikipedia on those articles where he has behaved in a courteous or helpful manner. Add to that his attempts to evade the block once it was put in place so as to continue his vandalism on those articles, I don't see any call for him to be unblocked succeeding. Grutness... wha? 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, as I said to Ernest, I am not an admin so all I can do is pass the information on to someone else. It would be up to them to make a judgment call. I worked on the Phar Lap article and found that trying to get editors from Australia and New Zealand to agree on anything was almost impossible. I did find that Ernest was one of the more reasonable editors to deal with. I looked at some of the contentious articles where he had trouble and found the edit warring quite ridiculous by all parties. I believe most editors deserve a second chance and should Ernest ask to be unblocked - I would recommend that he work with a mentor but no one needs to listen to me ;) - Josette ( talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work with Ernest the Sheep on their talk page. I've left them a fuller explanation of why they were blocked, since apparently three previous blocks hasn't clued them in as to what "disruptive editing" means... I agree that many editors do deserve a second chance, though this would technically be their fourth, so if you want to argue for an unblock I'd like to see some indication from them that they both acknowledge and understand their part in their block, and I think Grutness's suggestion of mentoring, though I fear probably futile, might be worth trying. However, they must realise they'd be on a very short leash; WP:1RR as a minimum, and possibly a temporary topic ban. BTW, I hope you don't mind me contradicting your above, but over at WP:MILHIST we have many Australian and New Zealand editors who manage to work together very productively; happily Ernest is an exception in my experience, not the rule :) All the best, EyeSerene talk 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi EyeSerene, I just read your 'fuller' explanation to Ernest and agree with it completely. I will not argue for an unblock, that is up to Ernest. If he does acknowledge his mistakes to your satisfaction and asks to be unblocked I think your terms and conditions above are reasonable and fair. Thanks for stopping by. -
Josette (
talk) 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd second EyeSerene's comment about editors cooperating - Aussie and NZ editors for the most part work together very effectively at
Pavlova (food), with the only real problems over the past few months being from anon vandals and Ernest. It's probably worth noting that I also invited an uninvolved Australian admin (Capitalistroadster) to check out Ernest's editing from the point of view of someone who - if he did display any bias - would support the opposing viewpoint to any bias I might have as a NZ admin. His response is fairly clear from his comments on Ernest's talk page.
Grutness...
wha? 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- And no one has questioned the obvious POV in the
Pavlova (food) article except Ernest? Did he also question the sources? I would. -
Josette (
talk) 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone seems happy with the article the way it is - it doesn't really display POV so much as reflect the best available information on the subject. That it is iconic to both countries is unquestioned and reflected in the article. That its origin has been claimed by both countries is also reflected. That the best evidence suggests that it was created in New Zealand is also clear, and that is the point over which Ernest is continually railing. No academic research has indicated an Australian origin of pavlova, and no contemporary records suggest that Bill Sachte's recipe - or any other recipe -pre-dates published recipes in New Zealand. Unless there is compelling evidence that it originated in Australia, the article should make it clear that New Zealand is indicated as the likely origin. That's not an opinion of a group of editors, it's simply a clear indication from the available facts. There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the references - what details of them would you question? Grutness... wha? 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- And no one has questioned the obvious POV in the
Pavlova (food) article except Ernest? Did he also question the sources? I would. -
Josette (
talk) 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd second EyeSerene's comment about editors cooperating - Aussie and NZ editors for the most part work together very effectively at
Pavlova (food), with the only real problems over the past few months being from anon vandals and Ernest. It's probably worth noting that I also invited an uninvolved Australian admin (Capitalistroadster) to check out Ernest's editing from the point of view of someone who - if he did display any bias - would support the opposing viewpoint to any bias I might have as a NZ admin. His response is fairly clear from his comments on Ernest's talk page.
Grutness...
wha? 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- You brought up the article Pavlova(food) as an example so I read it. I also read the talk page and everyone is not happy. That you do not see the clear POV being pushed in that article shows that Ernest is not the only problem. I don't want to discuss this with you - I experienced enough of this ideology at the Phar Lap article but I'll answer your question. I question the sources because the only real source is one book written by someone in NZ and published in NZ. Also, the section "New Zealand advertising campaign" is POV and should be removed. - Josette ( talk) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Josette :) Not sure if you're still following Ernest's talk-page, but if you have anything to add to my latest there, your comments would be very welcome. EyeSerene talk 10:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [3] If so, weighing in on the AFD discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again. Fladrif ( talk) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Haha! I have never had a sock or been a sock although I think I might have bought Jack socks...... - Josette ( talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margaretta Faugères, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shane Mahan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't imagine your reasons. Its cleaned up my way.( User_talk:Yinzland)
Warning, you appear to be edit warring on Cloris Leachman
You and Jack need to work out your differences on the talk page, rather than edit warring. While you haven't exceeded WP:3RR it is a bright line, not an entitlement. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have any differences, he's right and I agree and he knows it. Where's your sense of humor? :P - Josette ( talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! A Dancing with the Stars table, template and succession box! The entire set! I inadvertently stumbled upon something about Donny being a singer. And something about a sister, who can dance, but not as well as Donny, and some brothers. Rossrs ( talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
;) Jack Merridew 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Do your research, or at least look at the referenced link.
- I did, in fact I tried to source your information with some better sites myself, but doing the research I realized your information was incorrect. You need to go back and do your homework. In Jackie's memoirs [4] she does refer to Black Jack, but not as a nickname for Sardar (her horse), but as a nickname for her father and grandfather. Also, the JFK Presidential Library [5] has a wonderful and very helpful reference desk - all you have to do is call.... They will be happy to confirm that Black Jack, the horse from the Old Guard, was indeed the same horse that proudly followed John F. Kennedy's caisson during his funeral cortege or just look here - [6]. Oh, and please remember to sign your name. Happy editing! - Josette ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised that it was speedy deleted, considering I was expecting someone else in the AfD for Sarah Thomson to put it up at AfD. I am also confused about which criteria it was. The article, while a stub, still had relevant information and was fairly well written, so A7 would not apply to it in the slightest. I also could have sworn that it had reliable sources, which would make G11 not apply as well. It should have gone up for AfD, not been speedy deleted. Silver seren C 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't have anything to do with the Women's Post being deleted. But since it was deleted I just cleaned up all the dead links. WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7 are the reasons given by User:JzG in the deletion log. My WP:CSD#G8 simply means to delete the redirect to the redlink. - Josette ( talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Jack ;)
- 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Josette, if you want to peek in my sandbox, I'm working on a BLP at User:Montanabw/Sandbox2, and would be interested in seeing if you (and Lar) think I am on the right track with adequate sourcing for BLP and if it looks like it will pass notability without being viewed as promotional. Still very rough form of course. The photos are all mine from my road trip down there (email me if you want to see the REALLY GOOD ones I didn't upload to commons) Montanabw (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Josette, seeing as how you are in the mood to tell it like it is (grin) I'm about half-thinking about trying to take that new article I finished not too long ago, Sheila Varian to GA. I don't really think it could ever go clear to FA, but I'd like to stick a toe into trying a GA again. Can you give the current version there a look and let me know (on the talk page there) where improvements may be needed, especially as it is a BLP? As you are not an Arabian horse person, you will probably have enough neutrality to see if there are problems. Tell Lar his input is also welcome! Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- It will be a pleasure and a better use of my time here. ;) - Josette ( talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am just now reading the RFC and saw your question. I don't think anyone answered you so I slipped in an answer under your question here. HTH, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words. Your support was a true gem in a pile of mostly rubbish. Hope all's well. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You wiped out way too much here. The Dancing with the Stars performances should easily be verifiable, and are included in the articles of most other DwtS performers. Also, you axed his entire discography, which I'm sure as a mistake on your part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not mean to touch his discography, that was a mistake. The other trivial info, including the DwtS table, totally overshadows his singing career which should be the main focus - I consider the amount of info about his short stint on DwtS in that article to be ridiculous. It has no business in the lede. It should be removed - no one needs to know every single dance performance he danced or the song he danced to. That he was on the show is more then enough info. - Josette ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
[7] Can you please explain it? Not only am I not casting aspersions on anyone, lest of all Greg, I have no idea what any of this is about and think he should get a chance to be unblocked. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you know nothing about it, probably you should not be talking about it or making assumptions. Incidentally, your email is disabled too. -
Josette (
talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not making assumptions. I'm raising a question about whether the block can be undone if GJP rectifies matters. I don't know the fellow. Your blanking of my comment was totally unwarranted, and has been reverted.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you don't know what is going on, are you sure it is GJP that needs to rectify matters or are you just assuming? -
Josette (
talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am assuming that, because the block log says that he was blocked for "legal threats" by Risker, and I have no reason to doubt that Risker made that comment in good faith. I became interested in this because Cla68 commented on the CC PD page that Risker was trying to "silence" GJP, and my response was that no, it didn't seem that way, but it did seem odd he was treated so harshly.. With all due respect, however, you're just totally and completing misconstruing my comment, and I find that misreading and assumption of bad faith to be pretty serious as well as inexplicable. I just want GJP to be treated fairly, as it seems they came down pretty hard on him. That's all. Please
assume good faith, please do not blank comments on other people's talk pages, and please be careful with edit summaries. To say that I was "casting aspersions" is just plain wrong, and I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment. Thank you.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misread your edit, maybe I was being too sensitive. Because the "off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, is deeply deplorable", I just wish he could be left alone. I too feel the block was extremely harsh and just another form of harassment of this user. I would have tried to explain but you don't want to be contacted by email. -
Josette (
talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's appreciated. I will turn on my email for a few hours, but then it goes off as I do vandalism patrolling, and one occasion before I turned off my email I got a really nasty email from a vandal. I just don't need that. It does seem very harsh, but note the post on my talk page. If you can email the other side of the story I will take it in confidence. As I indicated to another user just a short while ago, if GJP is being falsely accused the best thing to do is to take it up formally with Arbcom or Risker, assuming this has not already been done. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misread your edit, maybe I was being too sensitive. Because the "off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, is deeply deplorable", I just wish he could be left alone. I too feel the block was extremely harsh and just another form of harassment of this user. I would have tried to explain but you don't want to be contacted by email. -
Josette (
talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am assuming that, because the block log says that he was blocked for "legal threats" by Risker, and I have no reason to doubt that Risker made that comment in good faith. I became interested in this because Cla68 commented on the CC PD page that Risker was trying to "silence" GJP, and my response was that no, it didn't seem that way, but it did seem odd he was treated so harshly.. With all due respect, however, you're just totally and completing misconstruing my comment, and I find that misreading and assumption of bad faith to be pretty serious as well as inexplicable. I just want GJP to be treated fairly, as it seems they came down pretty hard on him. That's all. Please
assume good faith, please do not blank comments on other people's talk pages, and please be careful with edit summaries. To say that I was "casting aspersions" is just plain wrong, and I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment. Thank you.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you don't know what is going on, are you sure it is GJP that needs to rectify matters or are you just assuming? -
Josette (
talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not making assumptions. I'm raising a question about whether the block can be undone if GJP rectifies matters. I don't know the fellow. Your blanking of my comment was totally unwarranted, and has been reverted.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Please contact me. My email is enabled. Minor 4th 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack Merridew 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember this nightmare? Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime#Buttermilk1950 Articles 1 through 11 . Yeah, me too. Now we have a bunch of possible copyvios from this sock drawer, and there is the potential that a bunch of articles may need some serious review to avoid being thrown out. I went through all the Buttermilk 1950 edits and verified or tossed all but three, and am begging you for a bit of help because you were such a fantastic support at the time. The first one I'd appreciate you helping to cite check for plagiarism is Women in rodeo, which may actually be worth keeping if the sources can be checked. The second is Gay rodeo, for similar reasons. The third is Animal treatment in rodeo, which I don't feel I can check because I'd have trouble maintaining objectivity (I think the article is biased, a content fork and should be tossed, as the rodeo article itself covers the topic in a more neural fashion. But others may disagree), so someone who can be more neutral than me needs to look it over. If this isn't your cuppa tea, feel free to give someone else you think is a good editor a heads up. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ya, I remember that nightmare - I think Buttermilk threatened to have me wake up with a slaughtered calf head in my bed or something (only slight exaggeration) - so will be happy to help out. I recall working on the "Animal treatment in rodeo" - I agree it's slanted but what do you do with an article titled like that? I will start on the Women in Rodeo but not till tomorrow, OK?- it's late here. Happy Thanksgiving! -
Josette (
talk) 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say if you can clean up the women in rodeo and then mark it OK at the CCI page, that would be terrific. I may be able to find someone else to tackle the Animal treatment one. I don't know what to do about Gay Rodeo, either. I think the article is worth keeping, I just don't have the patience to review it. (RL very hectic at the moment). Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
Holiday Cheer | |
| Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
/info/en/?search=Talk:Anna_Cora_Mowatt#Current_reference_content_v._old_Wayback_Machine_links
I see you were the primary author of the article, and I'd like to call your attention in case you'll see this. I live next door to Dr. Taylor and can put you in touch, if you like - perhaps if there's any references you couldn't find adequate to the ACM article, she can be of help. 96.37.252.235 ( talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josette, I have made edits to the Samuel F. Hodge & Company page which include references found on two different websites. I am new to Wikipedia editing and don't know how to make the links work in the Reference section. I also noticed that the Reference link for History of the Great Lakes is no longer working. I found the new address which is: www.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/documents/HGL2/default.asp?Ds559 I uploaded some images from my collection to the page and wondered if there was some way to rearrange the images instead of having them all on the right side of the page. (I hope this contact is within the appropriate behavior for communication.) Ladycamera ( talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Josette. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Espousesquecido, it was most kind of you to post that nice barnstar to me; it meant a lot to me. I wish you and yours a happy, healthy and joyous New Year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit serves as confirmation that I am requesting usurpation of "Josette" on several wikis, including: en.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, ja.wikipedia.org, nl.wikipedia.org, pl.wikipedia.org, and zh.wikipedia.org. In most cases (except nl and pl) the account has no contributions. I have already gotten renamed on Commons (see completed request: [1]) and Meta (see completed request: [2]) , and as renames happen I will connect them to Josette which is an SUL account (as is this one, disconnection to rename is OK). If by chance Josette inadvertantly has contributions which are clearly me (during transition it's tricky to make sure you are logged in as the right user) please usurp, those contributions are not important. Epousesquecido ( talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Josette! I usurped ja:User:Josette for you. Thanks for waiting. -- Kanjy ( talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll be working on it. Wandalstouring ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
|
User:Josette has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Well deserved. You're the awesome-est Wikipedian I know, about time everyone else knew too. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One down, 300 to go... Montanabw (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- This ↑ made me laugh out loud! I suggest a nice crystal tumbler half full of some good Johnnie Walker (maybe green label) or Maker's Mark (a little cheaper), usually does the trick for me. If that doesn't strike your fancy, what about a couple of shots of Patron? :) - Josette ( talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Kudos on a terrific image for Giuseppe Abbati. It even shows his eventual assassin beside him (assuming it's the same dog)--Nice find! Ewulp ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, (not sure if it is the same dog) I liked the image because it showed the patch over his right eye. The name of his dog was Cennino? -
Josette (
talk) 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd missed that, apparently the name was Cennino. According to Broude, the dog was selected and purchased for Abbati by Diego Martelli, who felt awful about what happened and later wrote an account of his friend's death. It may be hard to prove that the dog seen in the Boldini painting is Cennino, but it's an unsettling portent either way. Ewulp ( talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the requested move is still pending, and I would like to move it still to Tarpan. When that time frame runs out, I am quite sure a uninvolved admin will undertake that action, it is not my place to do so. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you un-bolded Women in rodeo in the first sentence of its article. I understand bolding the topic in the opening sentence is more or less policy. Maybe I missed something? I'm going to return it to its bolded state until I have information otherwise. Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think "Commentaries" in Rodeo in the United States is better suited to the animal treatment in rodeo article? I don't follow your thinking. Could we Talk? Articles are under construction and tagged with neutrality issues so moving whole sections from one article to another ... well, it probably won't help matters. Your husband Lar has been actively involved behind the scenes on these articles. Our thoughts are with him. Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Your playing some sort of "payback" game. Tit for tat. That's not civil. What we are trying to do is cite material in the Rodeo article per WP policy. Most of the rodeo article appears to be someone's OR and POV. I'm working to improve the article and WP in the process. Are you? Or are you getting all "pointy" and playing the payback game? Your behavior is disruptive. Is your husband using your account? Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 04:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Put yourself in my place. I have been working with others for some time on Rodeo related articles. All of a sudden, you show up, remove a whole section from an article and send it elsewhere. In your opinion, it belongs elsewhere; in my opinion it belongs right where it is. My time should be spent making progress on the article not investigating your disruptive editorializations. As you are new to the articles, please take your concerns to the Talk Page before being "bold" and removing whole sections. Removing whole sections is something for all involved to consider. Is your husband using your account? Thank you.
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that. -
Josette (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this is your SOP, ie, descending on an article, removing whole sections, moving those sections elsewhere on WP, reverting titles because IYO "it's a better title"? Try to imagine what sort of place WP would be if we all engaged in such disruptive behavior. Such behavior makes it very difficult to make progress on an article because it means others must use precious time investigating your editorializations. You're more than welcome to contribute but you're a newcomer to the articles. Don't you think that it might be better to go to the Talk page first and let the community come to a consensus on your concerns? Is your husband using your account?
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- YO! Buttermilk, I've not looked at the articles in question, but I've seen this and the bit on your talk page. You are out of line. Let me offer you a few acronyms;
WP:AGF,
WP:OWN. We have lots more, too, and you'll need to become familiar with them
PDQ.
Jack Merridew 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Buttermilk, in my time on Wikipedia (5+ years) I have seen some vicious attacks, I have made some of them myself, but I think you are probably making one of the lowliest ugliest attacks I have seen. What do you want? Lar to come to his wife's defence? Josette to dissolve into tears? For all I know, both may happen - both would be excruciatingly embarrassing to witness - as, I suspect, you are well aware! I have not even bothered to look at the edits you are so bothered about, your comments made that unnecessary. So here is some advice from a very experienced editor, who is not her husband, lover or even an sighing admirer: Grow up and shut the fuck up! Is that clear enough for you? Giano ( talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- YO! Buttermilk, I've not looked at the articles in question, but I've seen this and the bit on your talk page. You are out of line. Let me offer you a few acronyms;
WP:AGF,
WP:OWN. We have lots more, too, and you'll need to become familiar with them
PDQ.
Jack Merridew 14:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this is your SOP, ie, descending on an article, removing whole sections, moving those sections elsewhere on WP, reverting titles because IYO "it's a better title"? Try to imagine what sort of place WP would be if we all engaged in such disruptive behavior. Such behavior makes it very difficult to make progress on an article because it means others must use precious time investigating your editorializations. You're more than welcome to contribute but you're a newcomer to the articles. Don't you think that it might be better to go to the Talk page first and let the community come to a consensus on your concerns? Is your husband using your account?
Buttermilk1950 (
talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that. -
Josette (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the above and must say I agree with Giano and Jack rather strongly. Buttermilk, I strongly urge you to stop the personal attacks, Wikipedia takes personal attacks very seriously because of the environment required for collaborative editing. If I see comments like this again, it is highly likely I will block you, so this is the only warning you will receive. MBisanz talk 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have recently been warned about personal attacks and the possibility of being blocked. Before that happens, I would like to make my peace with you. I am so sorry about writing to you in a way that libelled your good name as an editor here at WP. I hope you can forgive me. All along I have encouraged others to contribute to the Rodeo articles and when you did I snapped out. I am so sorry. I'm 16 and this is my first real experience with WP outside the classroom. Anyway ... I am so sorry and hope you can forgive me. Sincerely, Buttermilk1950 ( talk) 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ealdgyth was spending time in the real world and in the process found some assorted research links that will pass muster in terms of WP:V and such for the articles we were looking at. Check out my talk page here if you think they will work for any of the assorted articles, feel free to toss in stuff as you see fit! I'm pretty much avoiding the animal treatment article altogether, by the way. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Talk:Phar Lap? Cuddy asked for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and I was struck by some familiar feelings about the editor's style that reminded me of some things from the Rodeo flap earlier. You were much more involved than I was though, what do you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. What I know about Phar Lap can be summed up in "He was a thoroughbred racehorse from around Australia." (grins). Beyond that... he was a gelding, so I never really researched him. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
About Phar Lap, do you not think that "Australia's Wonder Horse" is POV, considering the horse was born in New Zealand. Did you know the horse was American owned?. I think breeding is also important in the US too. If a horse is bred in, say Argentina, everyone knows it. Wallie ( talk) 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I do feel it is important to note where the horse was born. I do know an American purchased the horse as a yearling. All that is noted in the article. The horse's entire racing career, which is the most notable part of his life, was in Australia except for his last race which was in Mexico. His death, also very notable, was in the US. This horse was considered "Australian" (because of his racing career) by much of the world at the time. We can't change history. Here is the
New York Times headline from April 6, 1932, at the time of his death
"Phar Lap, Great Australian Race Horse, Dies in West After First American Triumph; PHAR LAP IS DEAD; NOTED RACE HORSE". I am not sure why there is a problem, I think it is all just part of his biography. -
Josette (
talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of like Mel Gibson. Born in America, back in America, but famous in Australia. (However, in his case, not a Gelding...) LOL! Montanabw (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it goes back to the culture of the two countries. Shall we say that Australians are better at marketing themselves (to put it in a nice way). Yes. We can change history. We know the facts. The New York Times didn't. They were told what to write.
Wallie (
talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The New York Times is considered a reliable source, we are not. - Josette ( talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the Phar Lap article. It is probably the most contentious I have worked on. There is more concensus on articles such as Joan of Arc, Napoleon and World War 2. Possibly Paris Hilton is as bad. I might ask for your help there. :) Wallie ( talk) 18:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I deleted a message on my talk page. Another user who had nothing to do it reverted me and put the message back. He said that I am not allowed to remove someone's comments without their premission. Is this really correct? If I passed you a message, I would not be surprised if you deleted it. Wallie ( talk) 07:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your advice. I want to do what is right. However, if someone is criticizing you, it is not very nice. It also gives those who you have current disagreements with (usually unrelated) ammunition. As far as I can see, a talk page is there to pass messages. The guidelines say that you can remove them. I do try to get people to justify why they are defending their position, which I think is incorrect. This makes some upset. When the issue is resolved, I then remove the correspondence as it is often misleading. Wallie ( talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Josette,
With the on going issues with User:Ernest the Sheep in the Phar Lap article I think we may need looking at taken this futher (To the Admin noticeboard) and maybe look at a topic ban or even have a revert limit placed on them. Seems to me that the blocks haven't worked. Bidgee ( talk) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Words like "issues", "ban", "admin". "noticeboard", "blocks" and "limit" are not very helpful. Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly enviroment. We all know Ernest's modus operandi, and he is just one of the "characters" involved - some think I am not perfect either. Some of his ideas are OK. Phar Lap is becoming (was always?) an Australia vs NZ thing, with big voices on both sides. Ernest just needs to learn to "hang tough" within the rules. :) Wallie ( talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update Sorry, Bidgee. I should never have doubted your logic. I take back everything I said in reply to you. You were correct. Thanks. :) Wallie ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Geez Wallie, that's a bit much coming from you. Weren't you banned for incivility only a couple of months ago? Although the evidence of this unfortunate occurrence appears to have disappeared from your talk page. I wonder why that is? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ernest. You should not attack those who are trying to defend you. Your above effort is actually quite nasty, like McCarthyism, which I hate. Wallie ( talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pull the other one Wallie. Who do you think you're kidding? A lot of people are well aware of your own modus operandi, so spare me the patronising claptrap. Learn to "hang tough"?? At least when I get a ban I cop it sweet. I don't whine and bleat about it like some do, eh Wallie? Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't find it funny at all.
Wallie (
talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Wallie, no one is laughing at your expense. You guys should meet and have a beer. (assuming you're both old enough) -
Josette (
talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I know you mean well. :)
Wallie (
talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I am sorry you found what I said offensive, but do you not think I might have been offended by what you said? If that is what you call defending me, then I would much prefer it if you didn't.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was definitely not trying to offend you. Quite the opposite. I was surprised when you attacked me, when I was just trying to defend you. I made it plain that I don't like bans. In actual fact I find that quite a few admins abuse their power, are childish and ban people sometimes "just for the hell of it". Wallie ( talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, I am sorry you found what I said offensive, but do you not think I might have been offended by what you said? If that is what you call defending me, then I would much prefer it if you didn't.
Ernest the Sheep (
talk) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I know you mean well. :)
Wallie (
talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Wallie, no one is laughing at your expense. You guys should meet and have a beer. (assuming you're both old enough) -
Josette (
talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't find it funny at all.
Wallie (
talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you guys take this spat somewhere other than poor Josette's talk page, unless you want her to put you both in "time out" or something? (smiling and applying noogies) Montanabw (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or something? Hmmm... - Josette ( talk) 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Good advice. I will keep any of my spat related stuff away from this... hallowed ground? :) Wallie ( talk) 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. You have come up with trumps again! Is there no stopping you? I guess the article is looking OK now, and Ernest should be happy with your references. They support the NZ side. There are plenty of other references available for the Australian fans also. Now we can create a NPOV version. Wallie ( talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- See, if EVERYONE just listened to Josette, there would be world peace! Montanabw (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wallie, could you please stop greasing up to Josette. It's embarrassing. Ernest the Sheep ( talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
|
Saw that (other, too;) — and I commented to him back on his page, where it belongs. We’ll see where that goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sama-sama, just trying to watch your back. and ready to confront "little shit" behavior ;) -
Josette (
talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- little shite like this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this Fucking
Barnstar for useful contributions to teh wikis and insightful observations about teh workings thereof.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
|
a juicy slice of pie for Josette |
Presented for moar insightful observations about the true nature of Wikipedia culture and Wikiquette and the littluns whats don'ts gets it.
Enjoy, Jack Merridew 09:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll save it until you can share it with me ;) what will the neighbors think ? - Josette ( talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Josette, I am not sure why you are trying to pick a fight today. I am not really interested in perpetuating some unnecessary dispute. If you would like to discuss our differences here, I am willing, or if I can help you with an article, I am always happy to do so. Or if it is best we walk away from each other, that is fine too. I am here to improve Wikipedia (hence my dozens of grammatical and stylistic improvements today) and make editors feel welcome (hence my dozens of welcomes today), not to fight. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then please assume good faith and don't leave disparaging remarks about other peoples comments and don't delete my comments when I try to talk to you. -
Josette (
talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I assume good faith, but to the point of being naive. The one account I replied to today was previously blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock that vote-stacked in AfDs, thinks he has a " mission" to delete articles (note also on the userpage the "Good pages to masturbate to" section and I could list multiple other instances of bizarre or non-serious kinds of edits), and has outright said he " wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia." Thus, ALL of his AfD "votes" are just that: copy and paste either WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, or WP:JNN style of rapid fire non-article specific comments that add nothing to the conversation and reflect no actual consideration of the specific articles being discussed. And again, in three of those five discussions, I had indeed commented prior to his showing up. It gets old for those of us who do try to improve articles to have to contend with such accounts and if we don't point it out or try to engage the accounts in the discussion, the closing admin might not realize that it is part of an indiscriminate "too many articles" deletion campaign rather than some kind of real reflection of the actual article under discussion. Even when I argue to delete, I mention specific policies and source searches (see for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Gaupher Eels, i.e. I do not simply vote by try to add something original to the discussion). Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
On August 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rix Robinson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- From user:ikip
Did you know you voted "Keep" twice on this AfD? - Josette ( talk) 11:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, but I REALLY appreciate you bringing this to my attention, THANK YOU. I removed the second !vote, and am rather embarrassed, this mistake doesn't help anyone one bit, and it makes me look bad.
Ikip (
talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw in
this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{
Cite web}}. Thank you,
Debresser (
talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll update the article and my outdated templates. - Josette ( talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
Sojourner Truth seems to attract an inordinate amount of juvenile vandalism. Given the incessant amount of vandalism and the corresponding need for reversing and reverting this nonsense, isn't there some official way to provide partial protection to the article, restricting editing to people who have at least signed into the Wikipedia system? Almost all the vandalism comes from anonymous accounts. As the leading defender of the article, are you willing to approach a WP administrator with this request? It seems appropriate to me. Dwalls ( talk) 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize I was the leading defender ;) You're right though, something should be done. I can ask someone tomorrow or please feel free. Thanks. - Josette ( talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Josette - I thought I'd give a little heads-up about Ernest the Sheep's behaviour and the reason for his block. He has been, to put it bluntly, a serious pest on many articles relating to New Zealand culture, especially those where the culture overlaps with Australian culture. He has broken the 3-revert rule more times than I'd care to count, has repeatedly insulted and laid unfounded accusations against numerous good-faith editors (including at least three admins), and has repeatedly made snide and occasionally racist comments about New Zealand editors in general. The harm he has done, in terms of his repeated reversions to incorrect versions of articles, the ill-will (to the extent of trolling) that he has engendered, and his attitude in general, far outweighs any good he has done on Wikipedia on those articles where he has behaved in a courteous or helpful manner. Add to that his attempts to evade the block once it was put in place so as to continue his vandalism on those articles, I don't see any call for him to be unblocked succeeding. Grutness... wha? 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, as I said to Ernest, I am not an admin so all I can do is pass the information on to someone else. It would be up to them to make a judgment call. I worked on the Phar Lap article and found that trying to get editors from Australia and New Zealand to agree on anything was almost impossible. I did find that Ernest was one of the more reasonable editors to deal with. I looked at some of the contentious articles where he had trouble and found the edit warring quite ridiculous by all parties. I believe most editors deserve a second chance and should Ernest ask to be unblocked - I would recommend that he work with a mentor but no one needs to listen to me ;) - Josette ( talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work with Ernest the Sheep on their talk page. I've left them a fuller explanation of why they were blocked, since apparently three previous blocks hasn't clued them in as to what "disruptive editing" means... I agree that many editors do deserve a second chance, though this would technically be their fourth, so if you want to argue for an unblock I'd like to see some indication from them that they both acknowledge and understand their part in their block, and I think Grutness's suggestion of mentoring, though I fear probably futile, might be worth trying. However, they must realise they'd be on a very short leash; WP:1RR as a minimum, and possibly a temporary topic ban. BTW, I hope you don't mind me contradicting your above, but over at WP:MILHIST we have many Australian and New Zealand editors who manage to work together very productively; happily Ernest is an exception in my experience, not the rule :) All the best, EyeSerene talk 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi EyeSerene, I just read your 'fuller' explanation to Ernest and agree with it completely. I will not argue for an unblock, that is up to Ernest. If he does acknowledge his mistakes to your satisfaction and asks to be unblocked I think your terms and conditions above are reasonable and fair. Thanks for stopping by. -
Josette (
talk) 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd second EyeSerene's comment about editors cooperating - Aussie and NZ editors for the most part work together very effectively at
Pavlova (food), with the only real problems over the past few months being from anon vandals and Ernest. It's probably worth noting that I also invited an uninvolved Australian admin (Capitalistroadster) to check out Ernest's editing from the point of view of someone who - if he did display any bias - would support the opposing viewpoint to any bias I might have as a NZ admin. His response is fairly clear from his comments on Ernest's talk page.
Grutness...
wha? 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- And no one has questioned the obvious POV in the
Pavlova (food) article except Ernest? Did he also question the sources? I would. -
Josette (
talk) 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone seems happy with the article the way it is - it doesn't really display POV so much as reflect the best available information on the subject. That it is iconic to both countries is unquestioned and reflected in the article. That its origin has been claimed by both countries is also reflected. That the best evidence suggests that it was created in New Zealand is also clear, and that is the point over which Ernest is continually railing. No academic research has indicated an Australian origin of pavlova, and no contemporary records suggest that Bill Sachte's recipe - or any other recipe -pre-dates published recipes in New Zealand. Unless there is compelling evidence that it originated in Australia, the article should make it clear that New Zealand is indicated as the likely origin. That's not an opinion of a group of editors, it's simply a clear indication from the available facts. There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the references - what details of them would you question? Grutness... wha? 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- And no one has questioned the obvious POV in the
Pavlova (food) article except Ernest? Did he also question the sources? I would. -
Josette (
talk) 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd second EyeSerene's comment about editors cooperating - Aussie and NZ editors for the most part work together very effectively at
Pavlova (food), with the only real problems over the past few months being from anon vandals and Ernest. It's probably worth noting that I also invited an uninvolved Australian admin (Capitalistroadster) to check out Ernest's editing from the point of view of someone who - if he did display any bias - would support the opposing viewpoint to any bias I might have as a NZ admin. His response is fairly clear from his comments on Ernest's talk page.
Grutness...
wha? 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- You brought up the article Pavlova(food) as an example so I read it. I also read the talk page and everyone is not happy. That you do not see the clear POV being pushed in that article shows that Ernest is not the only problem. I don't want to discuss this with you - I experienced enough of this ideology at the Phar Lap article but I'll answer your question. I question the sources because the only real source is one book written by someone in NZ and published in NZ. Also, the section "New Zealand advertising campaign" is POV and should be removed. - Josette ( talk) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Josette :) Not sure if you're still following Ernest's talk-page, but if you have anything to add to my latest there, your comments would be very welcome. EyeSerene talk 10:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [3] If so, weighing in on the AFD discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again. Fladrif ( talk) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Haha! I have never had a sock or been a sock although I think I might have bought Jack socks...... - Josette ( talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margaretta Faugères, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shane Mahan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't imagine your reasons. Its cleaned up my way.( User_talk:Yinzland)
Warning, you appear to be edit warring on Cloris Leachman
You and Jack need to work out your differences on the talk page, rather than edit warring. While you haven't exceeded WP:3RR it is a bright line, not an entitlement. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have any differences, he's right and I agree and he knows it. Where's your sense of humor? :P - Josette ( talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! A Dancing with the Stars table, template and succession box! The entire set! I inadvertently stumbled upon something about Donny being a singer. And something about a sister, who can dance, but not as well as Donny, and some brothers. Rossrs ( talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
;) Jack Merridew 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Do your research, or at least look at the referenced link.
- I did, in fact I tried to source your information with some better sites myself, but doing the research I realized your information was incorrect. You need to go back and do your homework. In Jackie's memoirs [4] she does refer to Black Jack, but not as a nickname for Sardar (her horse), but as a nickname for her father and grandfather. Also, the JFK Presidential Library [5] has a wonderful and very helpful reference desk - all you have to do is call.... They will be happy to confirm that Black Jack, the horse from the Old Guard, was indeed the same horse that proudly followed John F. Kennedy's caisson during his funeral cortege or just look here - [6]. Oh, and please remember to sign your name. Happy editing! - Josette ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised that it was speedy deleted, considering I was expecting someone else in the AfD for Sarah Thomson to put it up at AfD. I am also confused about which criteria it was. The article, while a stub, still had relevant information and was fairly well written, so A7 would not apply to it in the slightest. I also could have sworn that it had reliable sources, which would make G11 not apply as well. It should have gone up for AfD, not been speedy deleted. Silver seren C 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't have anything to do with the Women's Post being deleted. But since it was deleted I just cleaned up all the dead links. WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7 are the reasons given by User:JzG in the deletion log. My WP:CSD#G8 simply means to delete the redirect to the redlink. - Josette ( talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Jack ;)
- 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Josette, if you want to peek in my sandbox, I'm working on a BLP at User:Montanabw/Sandbox2, and would be interested in seeing if you (and Lar) think I am on the right track with adequate sourcing for BLP and if it looks like it will pass notability without being viewed as promotional. Still very rough form of course. The photos are all mine from my road trip down there (email me if you want to see the REALLY GOOD ones I didn't upload to commons) Montanabw (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Josette, seeing as how you are in the mood to tell it like it is (grin) I'm about half-thinking about trying to take that new article I finished not too long ago, Sheila Varian to GA. I don't really think it could ever go clear to FA, but I'd like to stick a toe into trying a GA again. Can you give the current version there a look and let me know (on the talk page there) where improvements may be needed, especially as it is a BLP? As you are not an Arabian horse person, you will probably have enough neutrality to see if there are problems. Tell Lar his input is also welcome! Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- It will be a pleasure and a better use of my time here. ;) - Josette ( talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am just now reading the RFC and saw your question. I don't think anyone answered you so I slipped in an answer under your question here. HTH, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words. Your support was a true gem in a pile of mostly rubbish. Hope all's well. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You wiped out way too much here. The Dancing with the Stars performances should easily be verifiable, and are included in the articles of most other DwtS performers. Also, you axed his entire discography, which I'm sure as a mistake on your part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not mean to touch his discography, that was a mistake. The other trivial info, including the DwtS table, totally overshadows his singing career which should be the main focus - I consider the amount of info about his short stint on DwtS in that article to be ridiculous. It has no business in the lede. It should be removed - no one needs to know every single dance performance he danced or the song he danced to. That he was on the show is more then enough info. - Josette ( talk) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
[7] Can you please explain it? Not only am I not casting aspersions on anyone, lest of all Greg, I have no idea what any of this is about and think he should get a chance to be unblocked. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you know nothing about it, probably you should not be talking about it or making assumptions. Incidentally, your email is disabled too. -
Josette (
talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not making assumptions. I'm raising a question about whether the block can be undone if GJP rectifies matters. I don't know the fellow. Your blanking of my comment was totally unwarranted, and has been reverted.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you don't know what is going on, are you sure it is GJP that needs to rectify matters or are you just assuming? -
Josette (
talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am assuming that, because the block log says that he was blocked for "legal threats" by Risker, and I have no reason to doubt that Risker made that comment in good faith. I became interested in this because Cla68 commented on the CC PD page that Risker was trying to "silence" GJP, and my response was that no, it didn't seem that way, but it did seem odd he was treated so harshly.. With all due respect, however, you're just totally and completing misconstruing my comment, and I find that misreading and assumption of bad faith to be pretty serious as well as inexplicable. I just want GJP to be treated fairly, as it seems they came down pretty hard on him. That's all. Please
assume good faith, please do not blank comments on other people's talk pages, and please be careful with edit summaries. To say that I was "casting aspersions" is just plain wrong, and I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment. Thank you.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misread your edit, maybe I was being too sensitive. Because the "off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, is deeply deplorable", I just wish he could be left alone. I too feel the block was extremely harsh and just another form of harassment of this user. I would have tried to explain but you don't want to be contacted by email. -
Josette (
talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's appreciated. I will turn on my email for a few hours, but then it goes off as I do vandalism patrolling, and one occasion before I turned off my email I got a really nasty email from a vandal. I just don't need that. It does seem very harsh, but note the post on my talk page. If you can email the other side of the story I will take it in confidence. As I indicated to another user just a short while ago, if GJP is being falsely accused the best thing to do is to take it up formally with Arbcom or Risker, assuming this has not already been done. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misread your edit, maybe I was being too sensitive. Because the "off-wiki harassment to which this editor has been subjected, is deeply deplorable", I just wish he could be left alone. I too feel the block was extremely harsh and just another form of harassment of this user. I would have tried to explain but you don't want to be contacted by email. -
Josette (
talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am assuming that, because the block log says that he was blocked for "legal threats" by Risker, and I have no reason to doubt that Risker made that comment in good faith. I became interested in this because Cla68 commented on the CC PD page that Risker was trying to "silence" GJP, and my response was that no, it didn't seem that way, but it did seem odd he was treated so harshly.. With all due respect, however, you're just totally and completing misconstruing my comment, and I find that misreading and assumption of bad faith to be pretty serious as well as inexplicable. I just want GJP to be treated fairly, as it seems they came down pretty hard on him. That's all. Please
assume good faith, please do not blank comments on other people's talk pages, and please be careful with edit summaries. To say that I was "casting aspersions" is just plain wrong, and I'd appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment. Thank you.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since you don't know what is going on, are you sure it is GJP that needs to rectify matters or are you just assuming? -
Josette (
talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not making assumptions. I'm raising a question about whether the block can be undone if GJP rectifies matters. I don't know the fellow. Your blanking of my comment was totally unwarranted, and has been reverted.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Please contact me. My email is enabled. Minor 4th 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack Merridew 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember this nightmare? Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime#Buttermilk1950 Articles 1 through 11 . Yeah, me too. Now we have a bunch of possible copyvios from this sock drawer, and there is the potential that a bunch of articles may need some serious review to avoid being thrown out. I went through all the Buttermilk 1950 edits and verified or tossed all but three, and am begging you for a bit of help because you were such a fantastic support at the time. The first one I'd appreciate you helping to cite check for plagiarism is Women in rodeo, which may actually be worth keeping if the sources can be checked. The second is Gay rodeo, for similar reasons. The third is Animal treatment in rodeo, which I don't feel I can check because I'd have trouble maintaining objectivity (I think the article is biased, a content fork and should be tossed, as the rodeo article itself covers the topic in a more neural fashion. But others may disagree), so someone who can be more neutral than me needs to look it over. If this isn't your cuppa tea, feel free to give someone else you think is a good editor a heads up. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ya, I remember that nightmare - I think Buttermilk threatened to have me wake up with a slaughtered calf head in my bed or something (only slight exaggeration) - so will be happy to help out. I recall working on the "Animal treatment in rodeo" - I agree it's slanted but what do you do with an article titled like that? I will start on the Women in Rodeo but not till tomorrow, OK?- it's late here. Happy Thanksgiving! -
Josette (
talk) 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say if you can clean up the women in rodeo and then mark it OK at the CCI page, that would be terrific. I may be able to find someone else to tackle the Animal treatment one. I don't know what to do about Gay Rodeo, either. I think the article is worth keeping, I just don't have the patience to review it. (RL very hectic at the moment). Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
|
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Holiday Cheer | |
| Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
/info/en/?search=Talk:Anna_Cora_Mowatt#Current_reference_content_v._old_Wayback_Machine_links
I see you were the primary author of the article, and I'd like to call your attention in case you'll see this. I live next door to Dr. Taylor and can put you in touch, if you like - perhaps if there's any references you couldn't find adequate to the ACM article, she can be of help. 96.37.252.235 ( talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josette, I have made edits to the Samuel F. Hodge & Company page which include references found on two different websites. I am new to Wikipedia editing and don't know how to make the links work in the Reference section. I also noticed that the Reference link for History of the Great Lakes is no longer working. I found the new address which is: www.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/documents/HGL2/default.asp?Ds559 I uploaded some images from my collection to the page and wondered if there was some way to rearrange the images instead of having them all on the right side of the page. (I hope this contact is within the appropriate behavior for communication.) Ladycamera ( talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Josette. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|
| |
| Ten years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)