User talk:Itsmejudith: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is Itsmejudith's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

I have posted some updates on the discussion page, some of which concern your comments which may be deleted if you're not prepared to support them with action. Jel

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

I was thinking of WP:SPA myself. See also my answer to Unomi. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments at the RS noticeboard. However your advice is still sought at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Links_given_during_the_french_AfD and the AfD. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MLK's legacy section makes similar "unsourced" claims and so does Baker without any sources. (Baker's article also incorrectly she was the first AA to not play segregated houses when it was Robeson according to three historians)I have sources for each sentence I write, I'm simply making sure they are not reverted as the article is in flux. Also as Str1977 tagged the article and then vanished, how long does his tagging have to stand? Do we have to wait weeks for him to show up again? Thanks for your time. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Put back anything you have a source for. If there are issues in the Martin Luther King or Josephine Baker biographies, the solution is to fix those. Re the tags, an obvious way forward is for all of us on the talk page to agree a to-do list for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 18 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. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your efforts to bring peace. Sadly, I gave up weeks ago. I'm afraid Catherine doesn't listen to anybody; she's too busy attacking editors who disagree with her. Her ownership of the articles has become a serious problem. I was reluctant to bring it to AN/I myself because I thought it would be dismissed as a content dispute.

I hope the new idea of using a to-do list helps focus the editing of the article. It's on my watchlist and I'll continue to look in on it from time to time, but I don't have the patience to deal with the day-to-day noise. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The article Sheepwalk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  20:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the situation WP:FTN#Interpretive science. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. My view is no, this is not a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Check out these admissions from JJBulten:

I. Message I About supercentenarians on Wikipedia:

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 46 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10

User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

JJB

 Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM

Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

The above message was posted on InvisionFree, and is publicly available, even though this is an "embargo'd" site on Wikipedia (it's a site that hosts video-game conferencing and other blogs; this particular group is a supercentenarian discussion group).

So, from the above message, JJBulten has clearly linked BHG's behavior to his own prodding, and his own conspiracy to "delete all articles on all the supercentenarians who aren't the WOP". Of course, he even deleted a few WOP articles, such as Louisa Thiers and Elizabeth Watkins.

II. Message 2

1. What Alexandr said (and quoting Brendanology):

Alexsandr Posted: Dec 17 2010, 10:18 AM Report Post

Supercentenarian

Group: Members Posts: 149 Member No.: 1,021 Joined: 29-July 10

QUOTE (Brendanology @ Dec 17 2010, 10:07 AM) JJB has employed a number of tactics on Wikipedia, including:

-POV pushing -converting editors -use of flowery language to scare editors (like DHanson317) -smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distort facts -and a number of others.

I feel that as long as he presents his arguments in a RATIONAL manner, he can stay. But if he begins trying to convert or recruit members here who are also editors on Wikipedia (such as myself, DHanson317, and NickOrnstein), out he goes. The 110 Club is a place to discuss supercentenarians, and is not a recruiting ground or an extension of his practices on Wikipedia.

If I were him, I'd find it strange to be banned from the 110 Club before I have even made my first post.

It's a free forum; we should let him stay for at least a while. If he causes disruption, criticises, or offends members who edit on Wikipedia, then it's straight to Complaints.

Just my 2 cents.

You right: here be place for the discuss of supercentenarians. but JJb is not beings interested in that. Has anything ever that he do on wikipedia indicate that he has interest like us?

No.

All he do there is try destroy all work for maintain coverage of not-bible supercentenarians. If it be JJB then he not here for right reason.

2. JJB's response:

JJB Posted: Dec 27 2010, 12:15 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

QUOTE (Alexsandr @ Dec 27 2010, 11:43 AM) Read what he posts yesterday. he not here for good. Delete his account I think.

Alexsandr, are you trying to say I should be banned because I disagree with you? I'm standing up for the Bible and you can call me narrow-minded all you want, I am proud of it, by pursecuting me you'll only increase my reward.

From the above message, JJBulten admits that what he THINKS he is doing is "standing up for the Bible" by destroying the scientific standard. Can we allow this kind of agenda-pusshing on Wikipedia?

(part II)Ryoung122 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow all of this. Is it Wikipedia posts or something else from the net? Whichever, I think you need to work on your evidence to ArbCom rather than sending messages to me. We all have a window of opportunity to explain the issues to the Arbitrators. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itsyoujudith!

Thank you very much for your comments on the source. I'm the one who proposed it. I have added some more info to the discussion at the RSN and would be terribly thankful if you could add one (or more) comment. Sorry if I disturb you witth these details. Cheers! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]