User talk:JoanneB/Archive2007/February

In recognition[edit]

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never even knew or realised I was even on that list... What's it based on? --Joanne B 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see[edit]

Hmm... was planning to use {{smile2}}, but it appears it's been deleted since I last used it. Hope you've been well, whatever's keeping you busy. :) bolded smiles are almost as good as templates. Cheers, Luna Santin 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I've been well, but erm... busy :) It's nice to be back for a bit though! Kind regards, --Joanne B 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Thankyou for reverting yourself. You should never revert a copyvio notice without checking first as the url where the copyvio was taken from was on the copyvio notice. Such actions only harm wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I know. It was a mistake, I didn't doubt your judgement at all, I was reverting quite a lot of vandalism and yours somehow sneaked through. Bad reflex. I'm retraining :) Again, my apologies. --Joanne B 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Fanny Blankers-Koen[edit]

Joanne, I saw you on a list of Wikipedians in the Netherlands. This article is very close to retaining its featured status on review, but there are a few citations needed, which can probably be found in some of the Dutch sources listed in the article. Do you know anyone who can help? Thanks.

Fanny Blankers-Koen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know many Dutch Wikipedians that could help out in this, as I don't know a lot of Dutch Wikipedians. But if I stop by the library this weekend, I'll try to get one or more books and do some research! --Joanne B 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention reason too[edit]

Dear Please mention the reason of warning on user page as you have not mentioned here User_talk:74.61.40.14 . Because i was about to warn him for same reason as you did Cheers Fight for Wikipedia cheers Khalidkhoso 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message! I used to do that every time, check my old edits. I've just started again and had to start using a new monobook, which does not have the right tabs for that, and the last few days the ratio of vandalism vs. people doing something about it was such that I thought it better to prioritise for the moment and focus on getting rid of the vandalism. I'll try and find an adjustment to it, but until then, I'm just going to stick to general warnings. By the way, this person vandalised just one page, but four times, so knowing which page I warned him for wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. In the future, if you're in doubt (because a previous message is rather recent, like mine was), just check the vandal's contribs, which will tell you what you're looking for. You should do that anyway, as that might show you old vandalism by that same vandal that wasn't reverted yet. --Joanne B 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a friend just pointed out to me: it might not be the best idea to prevent future vandals with a page full of nice clickable links of their own old jokes, or stuff that their classmates had vandalised before them. So, in any case, checking the contribs is always a good alternative... --Joanne B 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diligio[edit]

You have removed the information I posted.

The Diligio Site states that all information there can be reused
The information is not copied directly, it is the latest version.
I am the author of the Diligio Site and the work is my own.

Please reinstate.

1. Where does it state that? It says: "Copyright © 2002-2005 Diligio unless otherwise stated. Copyright usually released with no charge with permission of the webmaster" - that's not suitable for Wikipedia - as the information that's posted here should be allowed to be used by anyone without first contacting someone about it. So the moment you post it on Wikipedia, you don't have that control over your text anymore. Also, we need to be sure that the author of the text (you, in this case) is ok with this. Please read Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission

2. As you're apparently right, I'll leave it where you placed it now. Before reverting, I checked bits and pieces and they were exactly similar, though.

3. There is, and was, no way for me or any other Wikipedian to know whether that's true, sorry.

Kind regards, --Joanne B 10:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of truth under democracy[edit]

JoanneB seems to want to censor the truth about BSHS's terrible plight. I would like to hear her justification for her attempt to enforce the tyranny and unjust actions employed by the "dictator" of BSHS internet access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlc (talk • contribs)

I wasn't aware I was enforcing any 'tyranny', and I don't believe I was. The only thing I did was revert you, when you placed a link to a very questionable website set up to shame a teacher, and when you added subjective comments about teachers in the article and its talk page. I'm not enforcing anything but Wikipedia policy. If you want to, I can link you to some stuff about our policy, just let me know if you're interested. --Joanne B 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the initial edit, you will discover that I did not put the link on Wikipedia. The time that I did put the link under my addition, I had copied and pasted it from an above section. I did this to reinforce the fact that the link was already on the page, and since it is still there, why was my comment removed when I had never actually put the link on the article but copied it from a previous section of the article? Unjust hypocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlc (talk • contribs)

No, not 'unjust hypocracy'. I've removed that other link as well, I have nothing specifically against you. The only stuff I wanted to remove was the information and link that was completely unencyclopedic. Thanks for pointing out the other stuff. --Joanne B 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Yes, I see that you've removed it. Good on you. Perhaps you can send an email to the school, and sugget that students should have access to wikipedia form school. As far as I'm aware, access was severed due to that link, which you have now removed. All my additions were in the intention of reestablishing access to this website from school. I did not feel that I had the right to remove the link. But I agree that you do. By the way, what does UTC stand for?

I think you, as students, should be the ones to ask your school to be granted access again to Wikipedia. Looking at the link and the other stuff that was added to the article, I can understand their hesitations. Wikipedia editors can never prevent this from happening again, so we can give your school no guarantees, sadly. UTC stands for "Coordinated Universal Time" (yeah, I know, the abbreviation is weird, check out the article UTC). I will reinsert some of the stuff you added, by the way. Some of it looked pretty good, but as I thought you were mainly acting to discredit the school, and as all your edits were reverted all at once, it got lost in the process somewhere. --Joanne B 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I saw you already did that. Thanks! --Joanne B 14:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WB[edit]

as it says--Doc^g 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Joanne B 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerance in Netherlands[edit]

Hi JoanneB!

I don't want to be offensive and I think Dutch people are tolerant at least towards Homosexuals etc. However this is indeed the case that due to a violent action by some muslims, the whole muslim society in Netherlands is now under pressure. Well tolerance will be proved when you disturb others. As long as there is no disturbance all people in the world are tolerant. In any case if you don't like it please revert me again. I personally don't care. Take care. Sangak 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I said, I don't deny that you may well be right. But as I said, I don't think the views of two politicians (both representing the right wing, who are bound to be less tolerant than others) should be presented as proof for that statement. I won't revert you again (I believe pretty strongly in 1RR) and I think the way you put it now is more balanced. Thanks! --Joanne B 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drama article[edit]

I had it semi-protected. Looks to me like a bunch of bored kids in Kansas and Florida were the main ones vandalizing it. Know that your hard work was not in vain. --DodgerOfZion 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Unfounded Accusations[edit]

When you get back online you may want to check this out.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]