User talk:Catherine Huebscher

Welcome!

Hello, Catherine Huebscher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Meyer -article

Feel free to copy the award note to your user page once you've created one. --Easyas12c 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Clean Breast

The article you wrote, A Clean Breast, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article.Eli Falk 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one category. Additional categories are still welcome. --Easyas12c 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry...

but stuff like that is spam. Stop readding it.TNTfan101 03:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a you tube link because it was an example of very, very attractive cleavage that is not porn. The cleavage article is rather flat chested if you have not noticed. there are links to you tube all over here. You deemed it not appropriate and that's fine. I'm still learning about wikipedia .

Barbaro

Thanks for fixing the disrespectful link about Barbaro that I didn't notice or fix. Red Director 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring about Barbaro. I'm not a fan of horseracing so I don't know much about him; nevertheless, reading the article and the stories of his races, his injury, and his fight made me think a lot, and he now has a place in my heart.

That said, please don't delete messages from talk pages, even if you disagree with them. Deletion of comments (even bad comments) is discouraged, as far as I know.

One more thing, if you spot vandalism, please feel free to revert it or delete it right away. :) Happy editing, --Kjoonlee 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro Stuff

Please don't edit war. I can see from the conversations here and at Barbaro that this is escalating into something more disruptive than a simple disagreement. Remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Everything will work itself out eventually. Rather than repeatedly removing the Deadspin information (which can get you into trouble with 3RR) - rather than even participating in any discussions - I recommend stepping back for a couple of days. It's amazing the perspective you gain when you forget about an article for 48 hours. You seem like a good editor, and you shouldn't let this drag you down. Kafziel ^Talk 05:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree, but this guy just keeps attacking me and won't take it to the discussion page and is not leaving contact info but ultimately no biggie.User:Catherine Huebscher

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the horse or the website, but it looks like a few other editors feel like the "award" should be mentioned as well. So, from a strictly practical standpoint, they're going to win any edit wars because you'll end up being blocked for 3RR long before any of them. I know it's not right, but it is what it is. If it was a case of obvious vandalism, it would be different. Since it's a content dispute, the majority will win (for the time being, at least). If it's truly inappropriate, somebody else will step in to take your side, but if the community at large thinks it's okay to leave it in, there's not much a single editor can do about that as long as it doesn't violate our guidelines. As far as I can tell, it's not breaking any rules. We mention Razzie awards in actors' biographies, and this seems to be along the same lines. Insensitive, perhaps, but permissible. Anyway, I just don't want this to become a black mark on an otherwise good edit history. Edit warring and personal attacks (like accusing people of being trolls) are the kind of things that Wikipedians tend to remember for a long time. Trust me, I've been there. There are thousands of good editors on Wikipedia; eventually, the right version of the article will prevail. Kafziel ^Talk 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the community determined that it should be left out and placed in a separate section away from the storied honors like the derby and as you'll note above Kjonlee told me to remove the vandalism and Deadspin just removed a very balanced and well edited part of the entire Barbaro article, are you going to defend that too? Did you read his remarks to me? Are you aware that Deadspin had a link to their 'magazine' at the top of Barbaro's external links? I see your points but

I'm not afraid of these little boys. User:Catherine Huebscher

It's not a matter of being afraid. It's just a matter of not getting yourself blocked. If you get blocked, they win. Anyway, I've protected the page from editing for the time being, to let everyone cool off and stop edit warring. I see some conversation on the talk page, but nothing definitive or binding. Seems to me more discussion is in order. Kafziel ^Talk 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your mediation, I appreciate it. User:Catherine Huebscher

Changing stats on Fuko

Hi Catherine. Do you have any basis for these changes other than "it doesn't sound right" and guesses? I'm all for getting the numbers right. And the sources I see say they were right originally. Dekkappai 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have 38E-24-38 inch figure for starters and I just emailed her main fansite to ask them honestly. Its important that these amazing physical specimens not be hyped with false data by fans which is what the sources were. At under 5 feet tall and so square below the bust, I'm just not seeing an hourglass figure and 24 inch waist. The attempts by the media to give tiny waist measurments to everyone who comes along when there are very few naturally hourglassy women left in the media is not okay. Young girls could be mislead by the hype. Catherine Huebscher

Fine, Catherine-- Provide a source whatever numbers you like, beyond "It can't be," and "a fan says so," and I'll go along with them. Guestimates are not sources. The original numbers, right or wrong, are not from fans but from publicity. Dekkappai 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it should not be that difficult to refute fiction. Thanks for you time.Catherine Huebscher

No problem, Catherine. I'm as interested in getting this article right as you are. This is a very new model, and personally, I would not have started an article on her until more and better information is available. But since it's been started, we want it to be as good as possible. I wish you the best of luck in finding the best sourcing possible. Regards. Dekkappai 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Catherine. I searched last night and found three scans of print materials giving Fuko's measurements. They all give the same measurements that were originally at the article. I've provided links to two of them in the References section (I'll add the third later if I can find it online). Again, I agree with you that these measurements may not be accurate. But unless we can provide actual sources stating differing measurements-- beyond our own personal observations or guesses-- we'll have to go with the official data. Dekkappai 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice..

What's up, fellow wikipedian. I read your comments on that Fuko chick, & stumbled onto what you said your measurements were... Nice.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chairman Sharif (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

Please do not make specious claims within this article—among other things, there is no evidence of implant surgery, which also would have required removal of any such implants during her thin period. In either event, a reliable source for any such claim is mandatory. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March and April 2007 edits to Perez Hilton

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Perez Hilton. Your personal opinion about Mr. Lavandeira intellect and political engagement is not appropriate for the article.--Agnaramasi 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that he has no intellect and all the internet babysitters in the world can't change the fact he's a bias, Paris Hilton arse kissing, semi illiterate hack--he would be the first to admit it!

Your latest edit was reverted as it violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Please only add interpretations or analyses of Lavandeira's intellect and/or status within the history of pop culture that are verifiably attributable to a notable and reliable secondary source. Thank you.--Agnaramasi 19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Meyer

I did not tag this page, and I don't resent any special knowledge you may have. --Son of Somebody 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Russ Meyer. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not refere to other editors as "vegetables."--Agnaramasi 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vegetable is a character from a Russ meyer film.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Russ Meyer. Thank you.--Agnaramasi 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I'll now cite all my sources, pages etc and then please leave my beautiful buxom articles so people can learn about this great director and evolve past Perez hilton and the talentless trash culture we live in, it's for a better good.Thanks catherine

Good to hear. My concern is only to ensure that your "beautiful buxom" contributions have a content and style that is properly encyclopedic. You should consider my edits and comments as collaborative and not conflictual.--Agnaramasi 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool.the guy who did the bulk of the career section sited NO sources so please contact him too. i'll clean it up as I trall through. Catherine

The changes you made to what i did don't work Angar-not at all. It's a variety of sources people that Jimmy cites in his book,not Jimmy himself. It was so much better before and wish you would stop trying to prove your editing skills-it's making the article lack luster. just leave it alone please!Catherine Huebscher 010:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Ekberg

Oddly, it doesn't seem to be any editors removing your contributions. If you check the history tab, you will see that the only person who is recorded as having edited the page is you. If it was removed by another editor they must have been an administrator erased all record of your previous version, which is highly unlikely. More likely is that you somehow reverted your own edits....--Agnaramasi 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how do i revert it? I saved all my work i just can't put it back up now! Catherine Huebscher 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some help for using the page history interface. To revert you open an archived version of the page, you select "edit this page," and save it.--Agnaramasi 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Kelly Clarkson.

Please refrain from leaving messages like this on talk pages. It is highly inappropriate. Please read WP:TALK for more information. Thank you. Acalamari 02:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i signed that. You need to realize that the concept of what rock music is is being corrupted and voices of reason such as myself should not have to sugar coat stuff.

Weider Section

Yes I did write it; and your welcome. Glad to Help. FrankWilliams 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

My apologies for my late reply - I've been out of town for Thanksgiving. I assume the article you are referencing is Super Amanda. The article was deleted because it met one of the criteria listed in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Specifically, the article made no claim of notability. Notability, in Wikipedia, means that the subject of the article has been significantly covered by notable sources. The points you raised - being mentioned by another singer, or in a notable person's blog - would be considered trivial coverage and do not establish notability. Notability is also not determined by web hits, search engine results, Alexa ranking, or similar. Finally, the tone of the article was completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You're welcome to recreate the article, but you need to establish the notability of the subject first, and you should strive to write in more like an encyclopedia and less like a publicist. Natalie (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. Thanks for your patience. Natalie (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer)

Thanks for expanding but whast is the source for your information? Or have you given your own original info? Vikrant 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Casares

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ingrid Casares, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Ingrid Casares. —Travis ^talk 13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paciello

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chris Paciello, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Chris Paciello. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Madonna (entertainer), without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Let me introduce myself

Glad to see you are still here on Wikipedia, we have a mutual friend, Justin.

{handshake}

Glad to meet you, please drop by my page and say hey. Marcia Wright (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Robinson edits

I like the info you've added, but could you cite your sources better? I want to make this a featured article someday, and I'll be forced to remove all uncited info at that time. The "Robinson, Jackie,I Never Had It Made 1972" reference needs a page number. Also, the first two paragraphs in "Statement About Paul Robeson to HUAC" need to have a reference. Maybe their all supported by "Duberman, Martin,Paul Robeson 1989.pg361-362The Right to Travel", which case you need to add that reference to the end of each paragraph that uses it. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking pretty darn good. Thanks for adding page numbers. A number of paragraphs are backed by two citations. Does each citation support the whole paragraph, or just part of it? If it's just part of it, could you put the individual citations after the parts they are used for? I don't mean to needle you or cause you more work, it's just that this type of thing is easiest if done at the start when someone in the know (you) is working on it. Anyways, keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback. I did have multiple cites because I felt it necessary to provide more than one source on such a volatile part of his public life. The fact that his testimony regarding Robeson was absent from the article gives one the idea that it's still a very controversial part of his legacy as took him out of the framework of squeaky clean sports and into the Cold war AND it pitted him against another beloved African-American icon. The section may be tampered with or deleted so I'm happy that the article is protected. please make any adjustments to what i did and thanks again. Catherine Huebscher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (PST)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Robeson.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Robeson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Robeson.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Robeson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Robeson.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Robeson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work on Robeson article

Catherine, thank you for the beautiful and even-handed work you have been doing on this article. It was much needed. I gave quite a lot of time to it previously and then gave up because the hatred and racism of some made the work counter-productive. I am glad that era is more or less over and that you have made great strides in turning this article into something that is readable and worthy of the topic. Best wishes, Skywriter (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do not get frustrated with changes by others,- you are doing a great job balancing the process and keeping the article on track. Contributors will add or substract but with patience and experise the article is getting better. It is a very challenging article, indeed, as the subject is such a pivotal, multifaceted and outstanding person, eliciting responses from so many viewpoints. I think some of the problems of the article are based on the inherited structure that swings between a chronological and a thematic approach.Ekem (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: What are you doing?

Why are you messing up the Robeson article? It does not need your heavy edits with no cites. Why? Catherine Huebscher 9:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To what "heavy edits" exactly are you referring?

Are you confusing my edits with someone else? Skywriter (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry! I mistakenly thought you were two others as I'm still understanding how reverts and undos work. The user Alex who pulled down the intro paragraph into section 8 was mistaken by me for you. [[User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher] (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congo death toll

You provide here an estimate from EB, but the reference is not to EB. It would be good to get a reference specifically to EB (which edition? which article?). Could the source you cite be used as a reference for other parts of the paragraph? Elphion (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson

I still maintain some of that language was POV, as I referenced in the discussion page. "standing up for" is odd language. Did Abe Lincoln stand up for the rights of black people? Well, yes and no. He got slavery to end but I doubt he supported the level of equal rights expected today. It's better to speak in specifics. Blaming 'white America' also seems POV as America actually has no color. You're actually blaming the white population, which is racist. There were tons of white people who worked very hard in the civil rights movement. I think maybe you are too close to the article as you are rather defensive about it and seem to expect any who want to edit it must first become an expert about Mr. Robeson. This should not have to be the case. Killua (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance

I've never before presumed to advise a Wikipedia editor about the tone of his or her remarks on talk pages — but I've seen the reply you posted at 12:21, 11 November 2009, on the Manson talk page. I mean your statement under "Col Scott," in response to editor Wildhartlivie's justification of her removal of information you posted in the Manson article. I understand that you didn't find her argument persuasive — but avoid putting someone's dignity into play every time you disagree with him or her. It's ugly — and you are not.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I felt I was civil, did you not? Or are you just politely advising ;). Manson's alleged ancestry should not be excluded from the article and its been removed before. I like your inclusion as well and you speak rightly when you mention how important it is that little known facts appear in these Manson articles which contain so much well trodden information. I'm personally surprised that the editor who is obviously very skilled would revert cited information from Bugliosi citing hearsay. .Catherine Huebscher (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm just politely advising. I've been politely advised myself more than once. I won't go into detail about your post; I just thought you were arch in a few spots. Maybe you'll keep that in mind. As for the Colonel Scott information, which you put into the article itself — I didn't disagree at all with your position on that. I can't speak for editor Wildhartlivie, of course. Sometimes, she is unpersuaded by me, sometimes vice versa, but I always find it profitable to hear her out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dohrn page

You seem to be edit warring disputed and poorly sourced material in a biography, which is a violation of WP:BLP, not to mention stuff that's grammatically nonsensical. You may also have violated the WP:3RR policy as well. In addition, your comments on the article page and edit summaries seem overly combative. I suggest you review WP:BRD as an editing guideline, and consider that if your proposed changes are disputed it is best to gain consensus for them beforehand rather than simply reverting them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Automatic Man - Visitors.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Automatic Man - Visitors.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Automatic Man Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Automatic Man Poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CD-AutomaticManD1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CD-AutomaticManD1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson

What I'd like is for you to stop reverting everybody else's changes. Please listen to what they have to say. The lede is intended to summarize the article, and it only has to mention the key points a reader needs to know about Robeson. If a reader spends one minute looking at the article and only reads the introduction, is their understanding of Robeson and his importance severely flawed by not knowing he played professional football or graduated from Columbia Law School?

Regarding citing sources in the lede, since it's a summary, it probably doesn't need to be cited at all. See WP:LEADCITE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"since it's a summary, it probably doesn't need to be cited at all. "

Really? I'm amazed then at the standards that I was held to when first repairing and building the page and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing but I guess that does not apply to str1977.

This is not Jessica Simpson as you know, this is a MAJOR figure in modern cultural figure with HUGE reams of here-say and public misconceptions for scholars to thwart. He WAS a professional athlete for a FOUR years and he was a lawyer. It IS flawed to leave these things out because they built up the hugely important public figure he eventually became and was. Mandonna has far more "skills" cited in her sorry excuse for a life via her article's intro so why nor PR?

The intro is yours now. As I stated I was in the meticulous process of having FBI cites for all the points in the intro via the persecution aspects. My cites are now all messed up due to Str1977's edits and they took very long hours to source. Do what you need to do but my cites are not applicable what is now up there. They make no sense now. That is not fair to those who use wikipedia for research if the links don't fit. All my best to you. Talk/_Stalk 4:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I gently point out that an editor who chooses the name "Malik Shabazz" is likely to be an admirer of Paul Robeson, and perhaps even to know something about him? You two should really be getting along; I expect your basic points of view are pretty similar. I'll also mention that Malik is very experienced and is one of the few editors here who can navigate through difficult issues without getting bogged down. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware he is knowledgeable about Robeson. But my concern as just expressed on your talk page is that he seems to hold me to different standards than other users.Talk/_Stalk 5:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Paul Robeson

My attention has been drawn to the dispute that is taking place. I think I need to make you aware of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy, which says that an editor who reverts a page more than three times in 24 hours is subject to having their account blocked from editing. It's not clear to me whether you have broken this rule, but it's clear that you are coming close. If you do break the rule after having received this warning, I will place a block, so please don't ignore the point. The basic message here is that continued reverting of other editors is the wrong approach -- you need to stop reverting and start discussing the issue on the talk page. I am now going to protect the article for the next 24 hours to let the dust settle. Please let me know if you have any questions. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radh

Hello. I warned User:Radh against making personal attacks. You may, if you wish, bring the matter to WP:Wikiquette alerts.

PS - To sign your messages without worrying about tildes: The fifth icon from the left on the edit bar looks like a blue pencil. When you click on it, it inserts four tildes for you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson

Please see WP:NPOV/N#Paul Robeson and related articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks against other editors, as you did here. Try to comment on content, not on the contributor.

I hope you edit your message to remove the attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Forgot to you let you know. We seem to be getting along though at some point I'm going to have to curtail so much time explaining things to them. I'm trying to encourage them to read about Robeson instead of simply shadow me and ask about all the details and facts.

BTW: Great section about Malcolm X in Paul Robeson, Jr.'s "Quest For Freedom." Sad that Spike Lee erased Robeson from the bio film. Malcolm had massive respect for him. Check it out and all my bestCatherine Huebscher ^(talk) 5:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, I am not shadowing you and I have read a bit on Robeson and do positive work on him (which you will see soon). I only jumped in at either the PR or the PR and Communism pages when a) I was unclear about this or that information or b) when some wordings were too glaringly POV. I have another question for you on PR and will soon also also chime in on your dispute with Radh on the Feffer meeting. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson

I've re-created the substance of this article under a different title, Paul Robeson Congressional Hearings, and re-inserted forwarding hatnotes in the Robeson and Jackie Robinson articles. The separate article contains more information than the summarized sections on either bio page, and as such effects the FA status of the Robinson page, which I've worked on. As a HUAC investigation, it is noteworthy IMO. While I'd agree it could use soem NPOV tweaking, that doesn't warrant deletion as far as I can see. I've looked at the NPOV discussion but did not see any resolution. Please let me know if deletion reoccurs. BillTunell (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill, your work and input is appreciated as always. The improvements really make the article look sharp and the title is now concise.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Catherine, I received a complaint about your editing at Paul Robeson and had a look. It appears that you are doing a lot of reverting (you are very close to violating 3RR, if you have not done so already), and what is in effect name-calling (e.g. "pov pushing right wing bias"). I also note that this has been an on-going problem; you've received a number of warnings in the past few months for this exact same behavior on the same article. Going forward, I strongly recommend that you avoid reverting other editors, and instead attempt to work out issues on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Str1977 is close to violating it than myself so please take him to task as well. I do not feel Str1977 did a competent nor factual enough rewrite for me to work within and I have explained why. He wants it written with his version as a template and I am working on another version with a better chronological structure. The editor Foetusized has stated that he also feels it is a "botched edit" as well.Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catherine. I've replied to your comment on my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine - I am making an attempt to get the conversation on the Robeson article structured. I'm happy to put the time in on this and its going to be work, but it would be a great help if you would go along with it for a day or so we can get the issues highlighted. I am starting with an attempt to resolve the issues of sections. --Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

We don't use apostrophes to denote decades, so 1920s, not 1920's. --John (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please don't make any more edits like this one. --John (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radh calls me a "spoiled brat" if you had actually read the thread and he makes other nasty claims about me as well including my education. How did you miss it? As I post on here anonymously as of six months ago he carefully went through my talk history and found me offline. So please don't take sides without looking closer. He's been a thrashing troll towards me and he has a sockpuppet warning.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category Concerns

hi there,

user's sandboxes should normally not be included in article's category. In that case that specific user must have added the category into his sandbox. This can be avoided by using [[:Category:]]. Gryffindor (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson and related articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for unacceptable personal attacks on Talk:Paul Robeson. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had zero blocks on wikipedia for nearly SIX years for a reason-I have always tried to be civil even in the volatile subjects I've chosen to help edit. 31 hours is excessive, given this is a first time block. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 5:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Please stop already with the personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik, Standing up to racism and bullying is not a "hole" neither is a wikipedia account. I have Radh accusing me of being a "Stalinist" on many places on wikipedia while he follows me from article to article. I hate Stalin. He has some vested interest in "exposing Communism" and we are all supposed agree with his povs. Radh should have been blocked by now as well. Whatever, I'm not going to stop editing on this website in any capacity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:_Catherine_Huebscher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Talk:Paul_Robeson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peekskill_Riots#Recent_Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Paul_Robeson_2

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs

Hi, Catherine! In all seriousness, I can teach you how to "diff" with the very best... if you're interested. But even if you included the brackets ([]) around your most recent displays of diffs (which would make them a short "number" instead of the full link), they still don't adequately display the diffs you are looking for. They only link to the thread of the full discussion among multiple editors. What you want to do is to go back to each editor's contribution history you are citing (not the discussion itself) and cite that diff by clicking "prev" and copying that text and "bracketing" it. Here's what I mean about the "brackets", to begin with...

For this edit, you linked several things without brackets. With brackets, it would look like this:

"With all due respect, 31 hours was excessive given I've had six years with no blocks. I feel Radh is over due for a block. I have Radh slandering me and accusing me of being a "Stalinist" on many places on wikipedia while he follows me from article to article, looks me up offline and outs me. I hate Stalin. He has some vested interest in "exposing Blacks and Communism" and we are all supposed agree with his povs and hate speech like "niggers" and "Uncle Tom".[1]. Judith ignored his nasty "Neo-Stalinist bully" comment(s) (as the admins predictably did)[2] and defended him again. As one can clearly see, Radh has done nothing for the article apart from leave a few small sometimes snarky edits and complain and display his hatred of Robeson.[3][4][5][6] Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So, just to start, you want to put single brackets around each link: this makes it a simple number instead of the full link. If you are interested, I can give you the full "crash course", and you'll "out-diff" everyone. Just say the word, and I'll show you much more about it. "Give a man a fish..." you know the rest, right? Cheers ;> Doc talk 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. That will be a huge help. It is appreciated Bugs, you are not so bad for a wiki-icon. Thanks! Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Bugs: he's a far more "notable" WP editor than I (check the number of his talk page watchers[7] versus mine[8]). I was once "mildly" suspected by an editor of being related to HalfShadow (talk · contribs), but this was based mostly on a) speculation based on the similarity of the colors used in our signatures and b) a similar penchant for making comments at AN/I threads. Anyway, I digress...

1) When citing a specific diff of another editor there are two ways to start: either the history of the article's contributions or the history of the editor's contributions. For diffs at a page like AN/I it's usually much easier to use the latter, as AN/I is a hugely edited page. Just click the "prev" button, copy the text as you have been and be sure to "bracket" it.

2) For sake of demonstration, we'll use your last edit to this page as an example. By going to the history of this page[9], you click the "prev" button next to your edit, which shows this[10]. Now, if I just copy and paste the link and put it here, it would look like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catherine_Huebscher&diff=411105370&oldid=410940037

If I put brackets around it, it would become a number:

[11]

If you wanted to add text of any sort, you would put brackets around it, but make one space only between the closing bracket and the end of the link, and add the text there.

It would then look like this.

Same diff each time, but a radically different way of displaying it.

3) For links to things like WP policy pages (say you want to point someone to WP:NOR), a double bracket is used to open and close the link. Any words you want to add must be separated by a pipelink "|" (the key with the "forward slash") and you don't want spaces. So, I can make WP:NOR become NOR or no original research by typing [[WP:NOR|NOR]] and [[WP:NOR|no original research]], respectively.

4) The only way I was able to display the "respective" examples in #3 above was by adding a <nowiki> at the beginning and a </nowiki> at the end: otherwise it would have displayed the same thing again.

This should be the bulk of what you need to know to cite diffs from editors and to cite WP pages with any added words you need. The way I learned all of this, of course, was to look at the code itself when editing a page, and you should certainly do the same when looking at what I entered here. Hope this is helpful, and let me know if you've any questions. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson

Please keep the discussion on the relevant article's Talk page. That way other editors can chime in if they wish. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You might want to say something nice to Malik and to Snowded. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Who's That Girl (1987 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Your personal opinions are not acceptable here. Next time, discuss in the talk page before blind removals — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (1987 film)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Who's That Girl (1987 film). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please bear in mind that you do not own this article, and that personal attacks against other editors are not tolerated. Continued violations of the aforementioned policies will result in a block of your account. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better STOP with the bias editing, or I will be forced to report you for continuous 3RR. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing, no reverting. You need to start discussing the article beacuse I am not going to walk away. Old Madonna who kidnaps children and sells her dead Mom for quick buck is not going to have vanity piece after vanity piece on here if I can stop it. Open a Madonna website. My edit are 100% in keeping with wiki standards. You ideally should start discussing them so the POV can be resolved.

Do you think I'm going to take your comments seriously after reading the above? You are mistaken. I have reported you to 3RR and AIV. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted> and all my friends who edit here despise her pages and how vanity based and full of lies they are. You are not an admin. I am not going away so start discussing the article because it is too long and too pov.

I would highly suggest that you kindly remove or redact the first portion of your last statement above. Attacking living people (even on your talk page) is not tolerable. Please make your assertions without going down that road. Calmer Waters 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I have went ahead and redacted the above comment Calmer Waters 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

July 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Who's That Girl (1987 film). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Catherine Huebscher,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 04:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Who's That Girl (1987 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Catherine Huebscher, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Who's That Girl (1987 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. ENOUGH with the personal attacks! You will be blocked that is for sure, and I'm pretty good at finding out socks if you even try to do that. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked until you can edit collegially without edit-warring, making personal attacks, and creating sockpuppets. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: If this user requests to be unblocked, please do not unblock them without notifying me first. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to block by Fastily

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Catherine Huebscher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1.There is only one account created on this IP address. I only log in as Catherine Huebscher. Socketpuppet accusation is false and cannot be proven. Other editors and peers are concerned about pov on madonna articles. I am not responsible for their opinions or actions.

2.I have only been blocked once for 31 hours on wikipedia in five years apart from this. I have a mostly great track record here.

3.Admin is abusing privilege and process by putting an indefinite block and taking ownership of said block. I've seen far worse given far less including the use of the n word.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:01, 11 Ju;y 2011 (UTC)Catherine Huebscher 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have given no reason why you should be unblocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Catherine Huebscher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was edit conflict while I was finishing up. I am new to this and do not know what is meant by "no reason given." I have given reasons have done good, very hard work here on figusres who do not have much light in the media and whom have been almost erased from history and therefore are harder to edit. And mostly I apologise for my actions and wish to constructively improve articles and work kindly and calmly with others. Once again, I have no sock puppet accounts and would ask to see proof of this very strong accusation.

As other editors (not myself) were allowed to refer to Paul Robeson as an "Uncle Tom" and as a "n*gger," I had NO idea that pejorative names of far less weight towards madonna were considered "personal attacks." I was told that Paul Robeson could be insulted "because he is dead." I did not realize that living figures cannot be insulted in even a casual manner, I had no idea or it constitutes a personal attack. I understand this now, I apologise and will not do it again.Catherine Huebscher 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence (which I am unable to post publicly without your express permission to do so per checkuser and privacy policies) shows that User:DuneBuggyAttack was used on the same IP address and computer used by this account. DuneBuggyAttack was also using a network range in a different area around the same time this account was also used from that area. I have no interest in unblocking you until you explain what's going on there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually, the policy regarding living people is not WP:No personal attacks; rather it's WP:Biographies of living persons, which applies to every Wikipedia page, not just articles. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also on that note, referring to someone as a kidnapper is beyond casual matter criticism or a pejorative name. Calmer Waters 23:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Catherine Huebscher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, who is bubblesqueak1 and why is MY account name attached to their account? Please remove that association with my account at once as it is potentially slanderous. Why is Fastily allowed to do that? Secondly, I am on a shared computer and DuneBuggyAttack is not my account, my writing nor myself. I believe there is no wikipedia rule (please correct me if I'm wrong) that states that you cannot edit from a shared computer. I was told and thus I believe that your IP address can be attached to sockpuppetry only if you are creating multiple accounts from that said address and using them which I have not. I ask this in all seriousness, do admins come with an ability or an allowance to deduce/judge when a specific person is using computer or not? Is there a rule (spoken or unspoken) that gives Fastily the right to attach any account he blocks to my blocked account? I thought that was against wiki-policy? As previously stated other editors and peers also have expressed concerns over what many of us perceive as fawning and hagiographic material in multiple madonna articles. I know of many people online who feel this way. A great example is the Chris Paciello article. He is murderer known ONLY for dating Madonna yet, nothing more, her name is consistently moved further down in the article by her fans to lessen her unsavoury association with a convicted murderer.

Now I ask in all politeness, are ALL editors who want to calmly discuss the Who's That Girl, Film article, Paciello etc being reduced and/or the povs removed, facing an automatic block (which I then apparently take the blame for) from Fastily etc walking in the door? My impression is this is what is occurring. I do not say this lightly or to deflect the blame from my own faults, but I want others to consider that both Legolas and Fastily are possibly taking ownership of the article. In my experience this has been an ongoing issue with Madonna fans on wikipedia and I yes I, should have contacted admins ages ago or it. Once again I apologise for allowing this to escalate and become childish on my part.

Regarding Calmer Water's point about kidnapping, Madonna was labelled a "kidnapper" many times by numerous sources which wikipedia considers verifiable. The terms N word and Uncle Tom in the context they were used about Paul Roberson were beyond decency and yet unlike myself, no one was ever blocked or even reprimanded. But agreed it was inflammatory to label Madonna as such and I apologise. I've used this website responsibly for over half a decade and feel I have the shown the responsibility to be unblocked. Thanks for your time.Catherine Huebscher 4:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thanks for the wall'o'text, much of which has zero to do with your unblock (I wonder if you have read WP:GAB as originally recommended to you). We have zero problems with using shared computers - libraries, schools, etc are all wonderful places to use Wikipedia. However, what are the odds that 2 or 3 different people all sit down at exactly the same computer, create Wikipedia accounts, and all start editing the same article(s). Zero? Less than zero? Especially when you originally claimed that there was only one account created at this IP address, but now suddenly it's shared. There are behavioural and technical aspects at play here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I NEVER wrote what you claim above Bwilkns! Show me where I wrote this please. No wikipedia accounts were" suddenly created," none! Show me where. You are assuming that. All Hersfold stated was that another user who edited the same page was on the same IP address!! Please publish your proof via an WP check not your assumptions. [[User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher] (talk) 6:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin; user is socking as Special:Contributions/Bubblesqueak1 and Special:Contributions/DuneBuggyAttack. Both accounts have been indef blocked per WP:DUCK. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshade, please allow admins who are less biased towards me to review accusations of sock puppetry. I feel you are too biased given our past history and coming after me. I think it is obvious what I'm being accused of.Catherine Huebscher (talk 6.49, 12 July 1011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Catherine Huebscher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Unintended triggering of anti-vandalism systems (known as "collateral damage") - your IP address matches by chance that used by another blocked account."

My IP address matches no other accounts. Please have this reviewed and my name taken off the two sock puppets.

I vandalized no pages and I insulted no one but madonna which I apologised for. The above is simply not true and this is unfair. Print if you need to the proof- with my permission- of the IP history of all the accounts. I said shared COMPUTER not shared IP addressees there is a difference and I did not back track, TEN computers can have the same IP address did you know this? It is done on the account where the dsl or wireless comes from not the computer(s) itself. Due to death threats from madonna fans in the past I do not need to give out any more information about where I use a computer apart from the IP addresses. Why would I after,over SIX years, do something so obvious? Let's see the IP history proof please, that I'm these two other accounts. If I'm blocked for insulting madonna, then so be it and I apologise but, correct me if I'm wrong, the socket puppet claims are false, not proven by anything but someone's opinion not policy. If that IS policy then I would like to know.Catherine Huebscher 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

My IP address matches no other accounts. Please have this reviewed and my name taken off the two sock puppets. OK, I reviewed. Your IP address indeed matches User:DuneBuggyAttack. The rest of the unblock request (Madonna this and that) has nothing to do with the reason you are blocked, and you'd be best off not repeating it on a subsequent unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not blocked for 'insulting madonna', tho certainly making edits that are unsourced would run you afoul of WP:BLP. Per your second unblock request up this page, Hersfold is a WP:CHECKUSER on this Wikipedia. If they did not see the validity of the block, I expect they would have unblocked you rather than replying as they did. Syrthiss (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss. Hello,I gave an explanation to Hersfold who ideally should complete his review and check the IP address of the alleged "sock puppets" and publish here. They do not originate on the IP address I use. I'm simply not the only editor who feels this way about the madonna articles, many of us have grown tired of watching her fans their weave bias in. I made no unsourced edits I simply removed what I myself and other editors felt to be excessive fan based material. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Catherine Huebscher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

May I see some proof that IP both alleged sock puppet accounts are being checked please?

1. DuneBuggyAttack was not created on my IP address. One can have multiple computers and editors editing who want madonna articles changed on one IP address.

2. No accounts were opened yesterday on my IP address. Catherine is THE ONLY active account ever opened on this IP address despite multiple computers. Please stop accusing me of this.

3. bubblesqueak1 has zero connection to me or this IP. can the user account now please be checked and removed from my history at once unless you have proof.

4.Publish the proof of the sock puppet claims, you have my permission.

Thanks. Catherine Huebscher 11:19 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This has really gone on long enough. I've reviewed the data Hersfold has and have come to the same conclusion. Since nothing productive has come from your unblock requests, I've removed your ability to edit this page. If you wish to be unblocked, please email the Arbitration Committee. TN X Man 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, since you insist. You're right that DuneBuggyAttack was not created on your IP; my apology for that. It simply used your IP, on this edit, coincidentally reverting the article to the version you'd created 14 minutes earlier. That's the only edit DuneBuggyAttack has made in the last month. Are you sure you don't know who this person is? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catherine Huebscher for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catherine Huebscher for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]