User talk:JoanneB/Archive2006/June

Signature

Okay, seeing as so many people have complained, I've changed it. :( ~Linuxerist (talk · contribs) [1] 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I have so much respect for you, so your support meant loads to me. I am honored by your confidence - thank you so much!

-- Nataly a 04:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature dispute

Thanks for the note to Exploding Boy. However things are getting out of control on Nathan's talk page. If Exploding Boy reads some of the recent comments, he will... well... explode. Could you help me out? Prodego ^talk 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handled, the dispute is over. Prodego ^talk 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow things have clearly been heating up again. Glad it's handled, I was sleeping at the time you left the note... Thanks for all your efforts! :) --Joanne B 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not again... At this point I don't know what can be done, I asked them both to just drop the whole thing but... I even fixed the signature for them. Prodego ^talk 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's always something going on..if it isn't Sidaway, or Cyde or Exploding Boy..it's someone dredging up some sort of conflict. I can't possibly be any clear than I am right now (see my talk) about wanting to be left alone (not by you or Prodego, just by those who are prone to offend me). I've just had way too much conflict lately. I don't even have to go looking for it, it finds me! If it's not one thing, it's another. — Nathan ^(talk) 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Evil Day

Happy Evil Day

Today is 6/6/6. Remember to do something evil for a friend! File:Xytra.jpg.
(This was designed by Nathan)

— Nathan ^(talk) 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames

Hello, JoanneB - since you have been a frequent target of bad username creation, I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Proposal to warehouse insulting and offensive usernames. bd2412 T 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Offensive username proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if by magic

And as if by magic this appeared - timings are strange sometimes :) --Alf ^melmac 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

) Indeed! I've tried to start translating the article, but it's harder than I thought, since the article contains many terms that I don't know the exact Dutch translation for. It shouldn't be to hard to expand that article though, so I'll certainly make a start on that later! --Joanne B 09:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indebted, I hope to be able to find a way of returning the kindness. I guess I should looking for ntive French speaker now.... :) --Alf ^melmac 09:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tkendi

Hi, Joanne. I blocked indefinitely as it seemded to be a vandalism-only account, but you gave a temporary block just a few seconds before, so your block is the one that will take. I ususally do indefinite blocks for new accounts that are only being disruptive and vandalizing; if the vandalism isn't very severe, I give them the option of being unblocked if they provide some explanation or promise to contribute constructively. Anyway, I'll leave it according to what you decide, but certainly my first impression is that this is not a user who is interested in building an encyclopaedia. Cheers. AnnH ? 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit

Quick work! Just wanted to let you know I had a problem saving my edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (second nomination), and I wasn't blanking. Looks like [2] my screwed up save, your reversion, and my fix, all happened in the same minute. Cheers! Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it showed up on WP:CDVF, large deletions from AfD discussions used to always be vandalism but these days I've seen quite a few edits like yours caused by that Google toolbar. I didn't mean to get in your way of course :) Kind regards, --Joanne B 10:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

WHY DID YOU REVERT SOMEONES WORK ON MY USER PAGE??

Because it looked like ugly vandalism to me. --Joanne B 08:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan catholic college article

Hello, The critisicism section, which i created was not my POV, but POV's of the community in which the school lies, when it opened. I will gather my source and tell you, so i can leave it there. it was a statement saying how usually teachers are called Ms. Smith by students, not Penny for example, but Ryan was the first school in the district to permit students to call teachers by their first names. thank you. Jam 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have mistaken your message. I am sorry for that. I will cite my sources in the future. Please do continue to let me know if I make a mistake. Thanks, Jam01 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Star shines upon...

File:Blue-star.gif

...my dear JoanneB,
a true leader and a bright person
who believes from her heart
there's no such thing as
"too much kindness".
With all my gratitude for being
there when I needed the most,
Phaedriel

Seconded - Oh, I agree with this wholeheartedly from my own experience. — Nathan ^(talk) 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both! :) --Joanne B 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, JoanneB, for your kind words. I'm excited to get started doing my best for WMF!--BradPatrick 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.98.208.12

The above IP was indeed an open proxy on port 80. Tagged and bagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Joanne B 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi JoanneB. I just saw this diff. Apologies for not seeing it sooner - it just went right past me, I'm afraid.

I would like to apologise for any suggestion I appeared to make that I wanted you to leave Esperanza. This is certainly not what I meant, and I am embarrassed that my post could be read that way.

I stand by my opinion that no part of Wikipedia should be used to pillory any editor for any reason; but I know you were not advocating that ignoble idea at all and thus my comments were not aimed at you, either directly or indirectly. For what it's worth, I agree that membership of Esperanza could and should mean something and people involved could and should try harder to stand by our priciples. I don't feel that punishment or retribution are part of that, but then neither do you.

I hope you accept my apology and we can go back to being friends. Pax? ? ??DVERS 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redvers, first of all sorry for my late reply to this. But no hard feelings whatsoever! I think we do agree on most fronts, I was just frustrated by the incidents that I mentioned, where we couldn't do anything. For all clarity: I do not think we should 'punish' or whatever, I just think that once a member has crossed the line several times, we should be able to say 'ok, enough, this is not what we're about, see charter, you're no longer a member'. --Joanne B 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting my apology. I'm no longer a member of Esperanza, but had fun whilst I was. Thanks. ? ?EDVERS 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I certainly don't feel pushed out or anything. I just think that I've done all I can at Esperanza. I don't bear it or anyone in it any ill-will, and I might one day come back. But I did feel a bit cold-shouldered, not just by you but by others too at the same time. Unable to do more than apologise to you and not knowing what the problem was other than, horribly and by mistake, having offended someone I admire (you!) I chose the best path: walk away as silently as possible. I'd hoped no one had noticed! I'm not like certain people I could mention, intent on collapsing the house behind me when I leave somewhere. Where there's a source of a problem, remove the source, don't burn the problem down! But the source was me, so a cooling-off period is called for with me not present.

Thanks for saying you'd have liked me on the AC! The stress of being "elected" in my RfA (although all but unopposed) was such that I can't see myself putting myself through that type of thing again! I sent CP an email a few days ago with my thoughts on Esperanza's future - a way of having a list of recommended conduct and advice to members that wouldn't introduce punishment for not doing them but would give people a "pause" to measure themselves by. He didn't reply either (!) but he may have a copy on file if you're interested.

Thanks for writing to me and I'm glad we're friends again. :o) ? ?EDVERS 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Many thanks! :D michael ^talk 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly

The reason it's ugly is because it randomly popped up out of nowhere and interrupts alot of things that float there. If it had been there forever, people could adapt to it, and everything would be fine, but it just popped up one day messing everything up and underlining all the links. At least they could have kept a placeholder there or something. Plus, if people don't want to remove it, they don't have to. I can't edit their css file. I'm not forcing them to do it. I am just saying that if they find it annoying, they can remove it. I noticed that many people removed it and realzed that more people wanted to remove it, but didn't know how, so I decided to make that spam #2. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's just that you put 'ugly' in the stuff that you want them to put in their monobook. Sure, they can take it out, but you're sort of conveying a message that way, aren't you? I'm not sure if it actually caused underlining of links: that seems to happen rather randomly and is often 'fixable' by a hard refresh. --Joanne B 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. How about instead of ugly, "obtrusive"? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it neutral and say 'Removing the sitenotice'? People that want to remove it are bothered by it, and can find it ugly, obtrusive or whatever, but it's not really necessary to add it to the code your advertising is it? I'm just telling you this for next time, as I could imagine that might not like that tone of voice either when you're talking about the stuff they do to keep Wikipedia running. --Joanne B 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now?--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I didn't expect you to change it this time, just wanted you to know for a possible next time... Kind regards, --Joanne B 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Trainings

Joanne, The Impact Trainings page is still a work in progress. Many of the controversy items were sourced in the links below the page, others will be added in the coming days. Please restore the page and I will finish working on the controversy sources over the weekend. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reawakening (talk • contribs)

You can go to a previous version of the page by clicking the 'history' section of the page. However, if it's a work in progress, don't save it until it's done. On Wikipedia nothing needs to be perfect in the first try, but in cases like this, it's important that you source your facts immediately, not when you have some time for it much later. Also, please read some relevant policies on the pages Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Realise that we're looking for balanced articles (before I deleted some of your stuff, the criticism section was 2/3 of the article), and that Wikipedia is not the place to settle disputes you have with an organisation. Regards, --Joanne B 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

I read the old revisions. I am not a former employee of Impact Trainings. I am in the process of working with other people who have either gone through, or worked with people who have gone through the Training. There are also local professional therapists in Utah that have worked with many former Impact graduates. I am gathering information from them as well as citing some of their works. All of this takes time. I realize that the Impact Training group would prefer to avoid having their controversies in an open forum, but the controversies are a very big part of Impact Trainings' influence in the community and they deserve proper billing. I know of no copyright infringements in the original article. Some of the information was carried over from an original Impact Trainings page(ie, the IRS and FBI). I do not have sources for them at this point, but I saw no reason to delete it until I had everything else completed. The other information (like the claims regarding Han Berger) can be accessed through sites run by former Impact Graduates. The language in the article should be changed to reflect that it is coming from graduates and not directly from some published writing or speech from Mr. Berger. The bulk of this will be completed over the weekend. Please let me know I am ok to go ahead with the article.

Thank you

Thanks Joanne, That sounds fair.

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I do apologise about my frantic campaigning - I was caught up in the heat of the moment, and was taking it slightly too seriously. Sorry! King fisher swift 08:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to see you're enthusiastic about it ;) Kind regards, --Joanne B 08:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the rv on my talk page — much appreciated.. — Mike • 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry but I don't know what to do. I am new on Wikipedia and I am in this strange situation where someone is deleting my workproduct for comprehensible reason.

If you are aware of the situation, please tell me what I should do.

Thanks!!

216.194.3.138 10:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks!!

216.194.3.138 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne: So what's the deal. I am not a computer scientist and I do not understand IPs. I fail to see how I have not provided a straight answer to your question(s):

a) So you're stating that you have nothing to do with the above mentioned user?

I don't know who the above mentioned user is, unless you are talking about the person who edited Walter Bobbie and La Sagesse, which was me on the same PC I am using right now.

b) If we'd perform a 'checkuser', comparing your IP to the ones that that other user used, there would not be any similarities?

Since I have already stated that I don't really understand anything to do with IPs, I really don't know what else to add or what significance "similarities" would indicate if you found them. This is kind of abusive since I am not a computer scientist as I have stated and I was not aware that I needed to be to use Wikipedia. I'm sure if I were I would be a lot more adept at handling and responding. As it is, after I logged in when I checked my user page to see if you had responded (although there was no "new message" indicator) and there was nothing. I thought maybe you had deleted it, and I had to go back through the help section to find one the Advocates I had contacted earlier to find my way back to this userpage to read the last message from User:Demiurge, which I would have never been able to read had I not done so. Is this going to be happening everytime I log off and reboot? I can't keep the computer up all day. I use DSL.

I am going to send a copy of this message to your own talk page as I do not trust Demiurge.

Yours,

216.194.4.34 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- Am I going to have to redo all my work or is the person who deleted it going to do so??

P.S.S. - I did "Show preview" top see how this message would look and I noticed that the numbers in red at the bottom are slightly different from the ones before. What does this mean?? I am using the same PC at home as yesterday.

Danke

First of all, please create an account, rather than just editing without one. This is very easy and makes communication much easier, as you'll see all messages that are meant for you. The point is that each time you log on, you'll have a new IP address, with a new talk page, etc.

Second, apparently Demiurge thinks you are linked to someone with username Rms125a@hotmail.com, and I understand his reasoning. To me it's rather apparent that there's at least some connection between you and him.

About redoing your work: I'd suggest to wait a bit with that for now. If you do it right now, it might be reverted again. If they are valid edits, someone else might decide to redo them for you. --Joanne B 12:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my talk page

I see that there is some dispute as to this anonymous user, but I don't think it is necessary to revert my talk page when s/he is trying to ask me a question. I would appreciate it if you did not do so in the future. Thanks. - Jord 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to remember in your case. However, I'm not sure if you saw that user's contributions, but you were one of the thirty or so users that he directed the question at. I felt like if I wouldn't revert those, he'd go on and on with posting questions on various talk pages (and blocking would not have helped, given his dynamic IP). He seemed to me at that moment like either a clueless newbie (which he claims to be himself) or a very persistent problematic user (which others claim him to be). And since I offered to help him and looked at his case in detail, I felt like that would in both scenarios have solved the issue. Again, I will try not to touch your userpage in cases like these in the future, but I still think that I did the right thing in this case. --Joanne B 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the above comment, I have taken the time to read into it and see what was going on. In the futre, might I suggest that when rolling back these sorts of edits, you explain in the edit summary that it was a result of spam lest a big flare up like that which happened to HappyCamper when he made similar reverts. Also, I see that you have responded as I was writing this. I agree you were in the right, I just didn't realize what you were doing. - Jord 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. And thanks for your suggestion, I think that will be a good idea for the future. Kind regards, --Joanne B 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's rfa editcount

I just noticed your revert of me updating where's editcount, and I want to ask why? It said to update it. "See Where's _{(Talk ? Contributions ? Logs ? Block Logs)} contributions as of 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ^(Update*) using Interiot's tool*:". Well, if I wasn't supposed to update, then why did it say to? --GeorgeMoney ^{(talk) (Help Me Improve!)} 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say 'update' as a request, it's a link to an update of the edit count. If people started updating the edit counts multiple times a day (since most people's edit counts change constantly), there'd be a lot of pointless editing traffic for an RFA, which gets kind of irritating for people following it on their watchlist. Also, edit counts are just used for an indication, the exact amount (10 more than last time, for instance) should not matter at all - updating it gives the impression that it does matter. --Joanne B 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised though, that I shouldn't have reverted but that I should have just left you a note about it, sorry. I see that others are doing it too though, so I brought it up on the RFA talk page. You might want to comment there if you disagree with me. --Joanne B 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Elections

Sorry about that! I didn't see that notice. I have been looking at membership for a long time (even since I was an IP) but it looks like I just missed the cut off point!! Thanks Abcdefghijklm 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on "Calvin Cheng" page; "Opus Dei" page

Hi Joanne. Actually it's the same IP address. This person has been blocked before and keeps making the same vandalisms. Scroll down on the history page on the Calvin Cheng page and you will see he has been vandalising other pages e.g. Opus Dei page etc --Richardcrome 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I there has been vandalism from that IP in the past. However, it's customary to leave a warning shortly before blocking, as IP's are often dynamic and not used by the same person. The last warning was three weeks ago. Therefore, I left a warning only, after that he did not go on with the vandalism, so I decided not to block. --Joanne B 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I sent you some e-mails, just so you know, in case they're not in a visible location. *hugs* — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]