|
User talk:Catherine HuebscherWelcome! 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 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) 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)
I'm sorry...but stuff like that is spam. Stop readding it.TNTfan101 03:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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 . BarbaroThanks for fixing the disrespectful link about Barbaro that I didn't notice or fix. Red Director 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Barbaro Stuff
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
Thanks for your mediation, I appreciate it. User:Catherine Huebscher Changing stats on FukoHi 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) 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
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) 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). 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) 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)
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) 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) 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)
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)
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
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) 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)
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) 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 SectionYes I did write it; and your welcome. Glad to Help. FrankWilliams 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Reply to your messageMy 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)
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) 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 Chris PacielloA 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
Let me introduce myselfGlad 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) Jackie Robinson editsI 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)
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:
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) 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:
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) 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:
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) Your hard work on Robeson articleCatherine, 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)
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) 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)
Congo death tollYou 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) Paul RobesonI 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) AvoidanceI'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) 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)
Dohrn pageYou 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) 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. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Fair use rationale for File:Automatic Man Poster.jpgThanks 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) Fair use rationale for File:CD-AutomaticManD1.jpgThanks 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) Paul RobesonWhat 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) "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)
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 RobesonMy 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) 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) Please see WP:NPOV/N#Paul Robeson and related articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Personal attacksPlease 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)
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)
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) 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 RobesonCatherine, 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) 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)
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) We don't use apostrophes to denote decades, so 1920s, not 1920's. --John (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC) December 2010
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) Category Concernshi 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) Paul Robeson and related articlesHello. 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) 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)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)
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) DiffsHi, 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:
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) 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)
RobesonPlease 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)
Apology accepted. You might want to say something nice to Malik and to Snowded. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) June 2011
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:
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)
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.
<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) July 2011
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.
Blocked {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to block by Fastily 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) 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 (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) 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 (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) 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)
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)
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) 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 (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. TNXMan 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 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)
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) 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) |
