User talk:Rossrs

Main	Talk	Contributions	Useful things	Sandboxes	Gallery	Amusements

To begin a new discussion, please click here.

Archives
January-December 2005 January-April 2006 April-December 2006 January-June 2007 July-December 2007 January-June 2008 July-December 2008 January 2009 - February 2009 March 2009 - June 2009 July 2009 - December 2009 January 2010 -

Madonna entertainer FAC

Hello Rossrs, I have nominated Madonna at FAC. There are some minor problems with copy-edit issues, which I am not able to solve. Would you please give the article a thorough copy-edit please> A humble request. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rossrs, thank you for those absolutely wonderful comments. You pointed out some important issues, which I feel was necessary. I addressed them. Will you look up when you get time? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will Legolas. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated the changes Rossrs. I prefer the word subdue over restrain though. Hope its fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine with me. I don't have a preference, and I respect that you do. It's good. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rossrs, I have updated the Madonna article, with quite a few quotes, to balance the article. Will you take a look? And LOL at the below question answer conversation. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Portal:Music of Australia

Hi my fellow Queensland Wikipedian Rossrs

I have a question for you - well two or three :)

I have spent the day leisurely roaming around wikipedia on a learning expedition.

Today, I added my name to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_music

that is about the level of my knowledge of wikiprojects - my understanding and awareness of their purpose was really not known to me before today and I am happy to help out on another wikiprojects where I have knowledge and citations to add to articles.

I would like to add some content here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Australian_music but I am not sure whether to do this as I am not sure whether I have rights to add content there - I am a little bit confused on this issue.

and I would love to create a portal for Guy Sebastian - but have no idea on how to do this - I can research but I was hoping you could point me in the right direction with regards to setting this up?

No rush Rossrs - thank you for your time! Diane (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply Rossrs! I just wanted to make sure about editing and adding content on the Australian Music Portal. Thank you also for all your other bits of information to help me out - I am most grateful.

Best wishes Di Diane (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Di. Let me know if you get stuck with anything. I'll probably be no help, but I will try.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Answer: "UMMMMMM... ARCHIVE ME!! ARCHIVE ME!!!" Question: What did Rossrs' talk page famously beg him to do? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer: "OK, I've archived you to a sliver of your former self, you gargantuan talk page!!" Question: What did Rossrs reply to his talk page who famously begged him to archive?  :-D Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of disconcerting when inanimate objects find a voice, isn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous Userpage!

Greetings, I've been an editor for some time now, but (being older and deprived) I don't even know how to archive my own talk page. Others have done it before when exasperated. Can you help me with that? I do have ADD, so unless things are listed, like, "1. Do this 2. Now do that 3. Ok now this here, etc... then I don't follow well, although once I learn it, I have a good memory & I'm intelligent. Also, my Userpage is running wild. Can you help me? About 50% of my editing time is spent on seeking out copyrighted photos of musicians (and a handful of architecture-related photos), and convincing/teaching photographers to use Creative Commons licenses so we can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. I'd like to keep my mini-gallery of uploads on the page, but I keep a list of close to 400 names of uploads mostly there, and I don't know how to create a "fold out" kind of thing, you know? The kind of thing a person can click for example on band biography pages, where there are a zillion members. Something you can click open or closed. Another editor recommended your help as you've got a great organization on your page. I'd really like to create two extra sandboxes for learning how to create album articles and to actually start some articles before placing them on the main viewing area. If you can help me with anything or point me to another person who can, I'd be very obliged!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Madonna's mother

Hello Rossrs. I know you were searching for something to tell how Madonna's mom's death shaped her into the woman she is. I found quite a piece by Taraborrelli and added it to the Influences part of the article. Could you please take a look? And what are we going to do about the personal life splitting as Moni3 suggests? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part do you think we can include in the early life section? Can you do an edit for it? I changed the film reception section and the wording. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee. Thought so. I liked what you said regarding the Like a Virgin controversial figurine thing. Definitely puts a new light for me when I think like that. Will try to put something for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it, did it, did it!!! Check the article! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You sure did it! Did it! Did it! And I checked it! Checked it! Checked it! Seriously, my compliments to you. You've done a very good job with it. I edited out a few words that I thought weren't needed but I didn't change anything as far as content goes. I really like it. I noticed you added a photo of Mrs. Ciccone but I'm unsure what you intended with the image licensing tags. Although you have a non-free template including source and rationale, you have also added a public domain template. I'm not sure which one is right, but they can't go together. Rossrs (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)My mistake with the picture, I removed it. Also made some other changes including the lead as Moni suggested. It looks so much better now! I also introduced some changes as per Karanacs' comments there, though I kind of fear that the article might fail --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the moral boost Rossrs. It is true that the article looks so polished and better now, than it was when I nominated it. Even Karanacs thinks so. At this point I'm taking everything positively, just hoping for the best. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh couldnt have done without you Dear Rossrs. Well, finally the holy trinity of Madge, Kyle and Janet are FA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Hello, I apologize for upseting you, truly! Since the photographs were of deceased people I thought that was the proper command to select but I can see that I was mistaken. I'm begging you please don't be mad at me and next when I upload a photograph I'll determine it's categorization more carefully. I am sorry and I don't want anyone at Wikipedia getting upset with me. Please don't block me or be mad at me any more, I promise not to do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Rumage (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also replied at Josh Rumage's page. I was just tagging the photo of Sally Blane and sisters when your message came through. I am not upset or mad at you. Frustrated perhaps. Not mad, not upset. I wouldn't want to block you even if I had the power to do so. Please just take some time to read through the policies relating to image use and our copyright policy. There are links on the messages you've received about other images. It can be confusing, so if you don't understand something you should ask. It's not the end of the world if you make a mistake and upload something you shouldn't but if you keep making the same mistake it just shows you need to try to learn a little more. Ask questions when you're not sure. It's always the best way to learn. OK? Nobody's mad at you. Rossrs (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Marlon Brando discussion

listen here, my source was the documentation of brando video and like i was supossed to know name of it. my professor showed me this clip just for a few minutes, so thats why I don't know the name of this. Critizing a professor at Harvard University, how dare you.

when you said "the other gentleman was not alleged (until now) to have been Jack Nicholson, but was alleged to have been an esteemed British actor" ya about that, they lived next door to each other during that time (i think that info is on marlon brando page) so HA!!

Now im very disappointed about you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF is this all about? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is this silliness. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see it. Geez, share why don't ya, Rossrs? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From my read this was nothing worth sharing. <grinning-big> --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Crohnie, you're right. "HA!!" is an intelligent and highly persuasive argument and I'm humbled. Actually, I'm embarrassed for you 68.61.17.152 and it would be more correct to say I'm amused that someone would "HA!!" me and still be completely oblivious to what I'm talking about and "think" something is on the "marlon brando page" without reading it. "Ya about that"? Clearly no idea WTF I'm talking about. From a present or former Harvard student? With a professor? I wasn't "critizing" the professor. I wasn't even criticising the professor. I didn't even know there was a professor to criticise. I disagreed with the nonsensical comment at Talk:Marlon Brando. How dare I? It's not often I'm pleased to know someone is disappointed "about" me, or even "in" me, but there are exceptions. WTF indeed. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Share? I agree with Crohnie that this is not a big thing to share, but OK. I didn't feel like telling the anon at the time, but here you go. The long-standing rumour is about Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier seen kissing in a swimming pool during the time A Streetcar Named Desire was filmed. Supposedly seen by David Niven. It's a rumour of a gossipy tabloidy nature, unless the comment can be reliably sourced back to Niven himself, but it's the same story being bandied about by anon. How Nicholson ended up in the story is anyone's guess, but I have it on good authority that the Nicholson story originated from a Harvard professor, so it must be like, totally, ya'know true. Either that, or Marlon wasn't too particular about his swimming partners. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I've already heard that. I was hoping for some fresh gossip! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I try not to do new gossip. Feeling let down, huh? It may be regurgitated, stale old codswallop to us, but there will be some wide-eyed innocents who haven't heard it. Rossrs (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets just forget all about this nonsense we been talking bout

Natalie

I went to Durova to have her take a look at the photos that have been uploaded. Well, it's about what I wrote you about. I've got grave doubts on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BD

That's fine. I'll take a look later, when I'm not so dizzy. I think I am developing scarletina. Had strep throat and now I've got a mild rash and running a fever. If it gets worse, I'll go to the emergency room. Argh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. My fever broke last night and other symptoms have convinced me it is something else. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I had a little bit of stomach flu and the rash seems to be poison ivy. Not pleasant but not dangerous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It means a lot really. My aunt calls and I have to nearly spell things out for her, her hearing is getting so bad. I have Ivy-Dry, which helps dry up the poison ivy, and hydrocortisone cream to stop the itch. It's not so bad with that. My home remedy for stomach flu is mostly sweetened milk toast (buttered toast sprinkled with sugar and covered with warm milk, I know - ICK!) and flat 7-Up. I can handle it but it's horrible to be sick and the only person who knows about it at first hand is the woman next door with the baby that had cancer. I'm almost ashamed to tell her when I'm sick because of that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My mom had a really bad problem with stomach ulcers and while my memory may well exaggerate it, it seems to me that she had me make "milk toast" every evening. It seemed to sooth her. I got quite good at the proper proportions of milk, sugar and butter. Tradition is good. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My real comfort foods include hot cocoa with marshmallows and chocolate frosted malt (sort of like diet ice cream, I'd say). Oh, and Swiss-mushroom burgers. :) I've been quite engaged in making those lately. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lord#Filmography

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and WHL's talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You know Rossrs, he wouldn't have brought any of this up if he hadn't been wikistalking my edits AGAIN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wales

Oh, and what isn't particularly known are the contents of two emails Jimbo Wales sent me that reflected very clearly what his feelings are about the McCoy page and what prompted my comments at that AfD. He's quite bluntly opinionated about the article, the contents and the editors involved. He may profess being insulted, but geesh, you should see what he says about the whole situation. His desire to have the page deleted is quite clear. I have to think that if it was to me, how clear would it be to the other higher ups who commented there, too. He wouldn't hesitate to say to them what he said to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert article

Hi, I was absolutely surprised to see that you had reverted last. I too also reverted Chowbok under the same reasons, heck almost the same words. I just thought you get a laugh like I did! Hope you are well, see you around I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

It's rare for me to see you make someone be nasty. Cut that out!!! :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If and when the time comes...

Hi, if and when the time comes for you to mediate the problems that have been talked about let me know if I can help any. I would like to help out if I can. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to bow out due to this. I'm not wanted to help so please except my apologies in advance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to you at my talk page. I'm sorry to back out. I really don't want to but if you read the dif I gave you, you will see why. More on my talk page. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Fences and windows

I don't really feel like re-igniting all the WHL stuff at the moment, but I did want to address one of your points. You were asking why I didn't follow up with the admin about the supposedly exculpatory evidence she submitted... I actually did ask Lar about it a couple times, but he said it was still pending. Now he says he's passed it on to another admin with CU access, but to the best of my knowledge he's not said who. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point, or if you know through some other means who it is.—Chowbok ☠ 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. What point should I stop bringing up? —Chowbok ☠ 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar didn't accept it, though, that's my point. WHL is acting like she's been exonerated, and she hasn't. That's all. This category still exists. She's an unrepentant sock master, and I think that matters. I don't understand why I should pretend like she didn't leave homophobic comments on another editor's page, or use a sock to back her up in editing disputes.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is while I did submit ID copies as proof of different people, I absolutely owe NO ONE response on this. It's no one's damned business but my own. It's also not anyone's business to continually follow me around and post their version of my history here for any reason. No one seems to follow a self-professed sock puppet around and do that, why should I be wikistalked about it? It's been MONTHS since that event and yet, that's all that Chowbok has to say about me. It is time for it to stop.

Oh, I have plenty more to say about you, WHL, don't worry. I've been asked to keep it to the proper channels from now on is all.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And that would be a direct threat. And a fairly good indication that all you are about is bad faith. I do know the CU to whom it was given, in fact I emailed that person earlier today. Not that it is any of your business, Chowbok, again, none of this is any of your business and you should get over the compulsion to try and make me answer to you. Not gonna happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be WP:OUTING; Rossrs, we³ need to talk, about a lot of things. WHL, it is the community's business. Jack Merridew 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It would be outing. WHL you've been baited and you've taken the bait. Your last comment to Chowbok was very ill-considered and can't be defended. It's the sort of thing that you would have kicked up an unholy stink about if someone had done it to you. I'm sorry you chose my talk page to do it when I have been trying to quietly defend you. Thanks for that. A slap in the face is exactly what I needed. Chowbok, you've been inserting yourself into discussions to comment about WHL in the most negative terms at every opportunity, and you have nothing to be proud of. You surprised me by asking a civilised question which I was happy to answer, and I would be willing to continue to engage in a civil discussion with you, but this went off the rails very quickly. Somehow you interpreted my comments as telling you that you should "pretend" and spewed the type of venom that I was specifically asking you to contain. I wasn't suggesting you turn a blind eye or pretend everything's peachy. How on earth you drew that conclusion is beyond me, and so I wonder if you were trying to get a reaction from WHL. If so, well done. It worked. Jack, it may well be the community's business, although that doesn't mean individual editors have the right to keep hammering her about it, but the exact nature of the evidence submitted is not for public consumption. Whatever WHL submitted in the way of evidence, it's not her call as to the way it was handled after it was submitted. It may not have been "accepted" if we're getting into semantics, and Chowbok's probably right there. It wasn't rejected though. That issue was about socking, and the current discussions are not about socking, except that Chowbok doesn't seem willing to separate the issues. WHL answered to the community regarding socking, to the level she was asked to answer to, when she provided the evidence. The admin/s involved has/have not answered to the community in addressing the concerns that editors such as yourselves have about the way it was dealt with. Nobody keeps nagging them for an explanation though. Yes we need to talk, but I have to get up at the crack of dawn and it's past midnight where I am. So that's it from me for today. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rossrs, I do recognize that you've been courteous and I really was trying to reply in kind. I definitely was not trying to turn our chat into an argument, and if I came across as hostile in my last comment to you, I apologize. The "pretend" comment was more general; a few people have suggested I should just drop the issue, so I was addressing that, but I understand that you weren't one of those people, and so I shouldn't have said that in a comment to you. I was a little confused about your point, and I still am, but I honestly wasn't angry or trying to turn this into a fight with you, and I'm sorry that my tone incorrectly conveyed hostility. —Chowbok ☠ 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I initially did revision deletion, but actually this is not outing as Chowbok gives that info in their userboxes. Fences&Windows 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mebbe; I'd not seen that. Above is still a huge personalization by WHL and is an inappropriate battleground approach; 'proper channels', and your advice to take it to the new RfC and central discussion, are all WP:DR and do not constitute threats and bad faith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts x2) WP:OUTING says Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. His name is plastered everywhere on Wikipedia, which is where I found it. See his userboxes here, especially the one that gives his full name for his Flickr account, the "My name is" userbox and the one that gives his homepage, which says "This user has a website, which can be found here" and gives, once again, his full name and other personal information. I said nothing he hasn't posted here himself.. He has also posted a boilerplate letter to solicit images from "celebrities" and is repeated here. And let's NOT overlook the plethora of images he has uploaded that state they are the personal work of Chowbok and then gives his full name and website in the description box: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and[20]. But you know, way to go, going off halfcocked and completely uninformed on what exists there, Jack. It would seem to me that you should know of what you speak before you start throwing around unfounded accusations of outing. He did it himself, on this very website. A userbox saying "This user's name is Kim." is no different than sticking in "My name is David." There is no outing here, there is no threat with using the name he has posted everywhere, and the only bad faith that has been spread around would have been yours, David, and everything about what Chowbok does in regard to me. And thanks to the rest who automatically assumed I did a bad, bad thing. And as for bad faith and threats, wanna see the list of over 26 posts he has made to user talk pages alone that disparage and attack me, not counting yours, mine, Rossrs, Pinkadelica, Crohnie and Doc's and article talk pages. It's time for you chummy boys to stop wikistalking me, creating disruption wherever you land where I've edited (reference the whole Jack Lord debacle you've stirred up), and continuing to flog me for something I was blocked for a week for back in January. I served my block, everything else you assume you "know" is conjecture and it is far past time for both of you to put away the whips and stop flagellating me. It's an obvious ploy to destroy an editor's enjoyment of this website, which is the very definition of harassment. It is time for both of you to STOP. And you're right, Jack, I don't give a crap about your real name, I just threw it out there so you would have something to exert a power trip about. Way to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's mistake was understandable. Others in the thread, including myself, initially thought he was correct. Chowbok's userboxes are collapsed and I don't monitor his image uploads, and probably neither does Jack Merridew. I'm sorry that I didn't initially realise that Jack Merridew had made a mistake. This was an honest mistake on his part, and there's no harm done. Fences&Windows 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me by my real name. I did tell you it, and you said you don't "give a crap what [my] real name is". Got that diff handy?

I hate user boxes and Chowbok's are all collapsed, too. I never saw any of those, and I never looked at Chowbok's image uploads. User boxes are crap; Kelly had that right. They're full of gratuitous colours and bad code, too. The damn things never align because the people playing with them don't much know what they're doing with colour and code. They're a blight on the project, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) this post was made prior to this expansion of WHL's above post. so was F&W's post

My entire post was fairly complete and stuck in browser freeze-up hell since just after Chowbok's reply to Rossrs above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) ^diff

In making the above post,^diff you copied the formatting I used for the note I appended to my previous note, including the use of class="plainlinks"; this class suppresses the external link icon, which I don't like in dialogue; your note, however, did not include an extern and the class thus has no effect. You didn't sign your post, so I added an {{unsigned}} and included the diff of your edit in a sup-element that would especially benefit from suppressing the icon as the icon does not change size along with the text in small- and sup-elements and so I moved the class to where it would then have a purpose. My point here is that you copy code without understanding what it does and without knowing if it is correct, useful, or appropriate. I breathe this stuff, so copying my code is reasonably safe as long is the target context is still appropriate. You have activity promoted the copying of tens of thousands of instance of several flavours of outright bad code that you are only able to judge by what you see rendered in your browser. This is fundamentally a wrong approach to code. Would you attempt brain surgery based on watching Scrubs? It's the same thing. Would you intervene in a real operating theater if you thought the surgeon was doing something you disagreed with based on viewings of House? Ask her to step away from the task at hand to discuss it? For four months? Same thing. What you are doing in all this is obstructing appropriate clean-up over a personal preference for a splash of colour, and a stubborn insistence for your preferred way of doing everything. You and a few friends have seized WP:ACTOR as a vehicle to assert control over a wide swath of the project and this is fundamentally against the core definition of what a WikiProject is. fyi, they're not social clubs, they're social groups; it's in the very definition of the term. They do not have any authority over articles and they are not owned by any users. You don't get this, but this is bedrock you're pounding your fists against, and the new Consensus/RfC will simply confirm this. If your core motivation was the improvement of filmographies on the project, you would be welcoming my improvements to their implementation; that you do not, leads me to the conclusion that you're intent on establishing WP:ACTOR as a suzerainty within en:wp with you able to exercise control over your articles. You are actually serving a useful role in this whole affair as the clarification of the role of WikiProjects on the project is needful, and a great many issues far afield of actor bios will benefit. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please except my apology too as I too was wrong. I'm sorry. You know Jack, you could say you are sorry too, that is if you mean it. Just a suggestion. --CrohnieGal ^Talk 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew ChowBok's name because I was told directly. I'd not seen it on-wiki, and I've not used it on-wiki. I was mistaken, and Chowbok seems unconcerned about it. Wildhartlive, I am sorry for this; maaf. However, all my other concerns stand. You threw my real name out as bait? Not taken. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And I actually do appreciate the apology about Chowbok. I've used it before, and he didn't complain then, either. And I don't apply the apology to any of the other issues I have with you, but regarding this, danka. And for not taking it, you did react. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, narrowly construed. I reacted appropriately to your baiting, which you've just acknowledged was your intention.

Rossrs, give it all a day or so and let me know if we're going to proceed with this mediation effort. WHL, are you more than aboard "on the surface" or should I just take it to the next step? There are a lot of eyes on this and it will sort fairly soon; somehow. Jack Merridew 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I responded privately to Rossrs about it, but I certainly am tired of you dropping insinuations that you are about to "take it to the next step." That is unnecessary and a bit of an intimidation ultimatum tactic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)w/Rossrs. @WHL: It is not unnecessary or a tactic; it's called for by dispute resolution policy if other means do not resolve disputes. Further, I am still under an ArbCom imposed restriction that specifically requires that I follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts. These processes do, of course, apply to all editors, but I've been specifically pointed at them. You don't want to go there, do you? I'm going to give you a really honest bit of advice: you don't want me to go there. I have a history that includes a lot of dispute resolution. My disputes get resolved, and I'm the one still standing. It is in your best interest to deescalate this.

Rossrs, please email me, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

About what? I don't mind if you email me, and then I guess I'll know specifically what you want to discuss. Rossrs (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent is to chat about things I'll not say on-wiki and first up was to fill you in on some personal details and other stuff about me to help you understand the context of... all of it. I think you don't realize that your account is not set to allow people to email you; I get:

This user has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

So, up to you to email me or go to your prefs and enable email from other users. I've seen comments to the effect that you do chat on email with others, but expect it is only those that you've initiated dialogue with. If you initiate email, the recipient is given your email address and if they reply, you get theirs. Enabling email does not mean you have to reply to anything; you don't even have to read it. I get emails from all the major trolls; fuck them; I don't reply. I trust you and hope you'll trust me. I'm pretty open about myself on email, but am chary of too much detail appearing on wiki as there are all manner of unimpressive people here. The place is awash in trolls, socks of banned users, and all sort of people I'll not get too chummy with. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Rossrs↓ I don't see anything negative adhering to you in this and I don't see you as an idiot. Sure we disagree on a few things; that doesn't mean I can't work with you. You've liked things I've urged you to, and there's plenty of potential for more of that. You're a reasonable person and I'm glad to have met you. fyi, I don't use and often remove {{od}} as it interrupts threads. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlive, I sincerely apologise for jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst, something I should have never done. I regret that more than I can say, and I hope you'll accept that. I am still annoyed with you. I can't think of anyone who has tried harder to defend you and to try to let other people see the good person I see, and I was in the middle of doing that in discussion with Chowbok. I can't think of a good reason to address him by his real name, privacy issues aside, except to be snarky, and that is what I objected more to than anything else. When I'm in the middle of telling people they should leave you alone and treat you fairly, you come along and start acting like the bad person that I try to tell everyone you are not. That makes me look like an idiot, something I can accomplish fairly successfully without your assistance. I geniunely hope that there has been no permanent damage as a result of my reaction. I really am very sorry, and I feel terrible for talking to you that way. Rossrs (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

she's gone. Good work Jack and Chowbok, how many others are you going to chase off the project? Right now the count I know of is two working on three. Good work, both of you. <sarcasm off> Personally I am totally disgusted right now so I'm going to stop before I say something I shouldn't. Shame on both of you though, --CrohnieGal ^Talk 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear CrohnieGal, I'm sorry that you feel that way but WHL was not chased off by anyone. She is not a victim, how could she be? She is fierce and brave and not afraid of, or intimidated by, anyone here. She is always willing to get down in the trenches with anyone who challenges the articles under her watch, whether they are a new IP or an established user. She has been willing to use any means available... from rudeness and foul language to dragging users to AN/I at the drop of a hat, threats of blocks, allegations of sockpuppetry by others, and sockpuppetry herself, and if that doesn't work - sheer manipulation of opinion and plays for sympathy - to protect her turf. Don't worry my dear, she will be back and we can count on her to return armed and loaded as usual. If she is a victim, it is of her own making. - Josette (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All I am going to say about this is thanks for the condescending comments to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Claire Luce.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Claire Luce.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Email?

Hi, may I email you? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response at my talk page. I'm not really interested right now is talking. I am very upset by the recent events. I'll talk soon though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Email just sent, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

I'm not seeng an email link on the sidebar. Would you drop me an email please, you can find it on my user page sidebar. Thanks, got to go now, family emergency just occurred. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

hooking you up ;)

• User talk:John Vandenberg#Arbcom ruling question

Mebbe John will sport you a beer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Rossrs, I thought you should know about a discussion going on here. Thanks, I'll be able to get an email out to you soon. I did send you a short one did you get it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe she intended sincere dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today

Sorry you're sorta involved in this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And you do? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say, "Yes, I'm sorry I'm sorta involved in this" and if you'd put a question mark at the end of your comment, I might have given that reply. Just kidding, I'm not sorry. Crohnie, both editors let it get out of hand rather than try to resolve it. Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are so right. But lately, there seems to be a lot more pushing going on and bad faith accusations which is wrong, like the start of this thread, anyway it's looked at. I suggest everyone just stop, and now! I'm sorry Rossrs that you are stuck in this mess and I wouldn't hold anything against you if you bowed out. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, your involvement is not helpful in this. The discussion on email supports this and you and WHL's usual supporters are going to be asked to not interfere by her (so I hear, at least); I'll be asking Chobok to stand aside, too. The idea being that we'll attempt to sort this amongst the three of us. Jack Merridew 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, I'll reply to your latest shortly. My 'involved' comment really was specific to the ANI thread; I mentioned you and so I notified you.

I said there that I'd ask you about the sequencing; I believe you got an agreement from WHL to participate in this mediation effort prior to her having gone and reverted me at the Jackson page. I, however, got that email from you after the revert. Is the correct? If so, I see it as entirely something she inappropriately instigated right at the start of this. WHL is right in that I reverted her in order to "protect [my] changes". I will do so in similar circumstances, too. I have a long history of defending this project from problematic users; she's merely a current one.

First ground rule here is that she's not to revert me on anything. And, no, I'm not making the reciprocal agreement. She is the one inappropriately obstructing reasonable efforts here. I will refrain, for a while, from reasonable edits she might object to. I'm willing to give this a bit more time to see if it has any chance at all of resolving this. If not, see WP:DR. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a gap of about 20 hours between me receiving an email from WHL, and me sending an email to you to say she was amenable to mediation. Looking at the time of the revert at Sam Jackson's filmography, it was made after the email to me, but before I had emailed you. Rossrs (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; it seemed possible that the sequence had been reversed, but only if you're emailed my quite quickly after hearing from her. So, the nutshell is: she agreed to mediation and then next morning chose to pick this fight over the sorting/rowspans. Thanks, Jack Merridew 00:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, Jack, I'd stop trying to prove something you can't prove. And your current comment on me - "I have a long history of defending this project from problematic users; she's merely a current one" is fairly typical Jack Merridew slam and assault commentary that ignores that you were one of them. Your edits at the Jackson filmography had much much less to do with "clean up" than it had to do with imposing just the latest in your unending barrage of "fixes" and changes that aren't fixes. Your accusations that I am obstructing clean up is simply not true, in fact, I'd characterize that as a falsehood. It is one thing to clean something up, it is entirely another to wikistalk an editor to find something new to stick in that you are quite sure would be controversial. Sort of like removing the good faith imbedded notes on Kate Winslet and misrepresenting them as ownership issues. Give it a huge rest, it doesn't fly. You are out of your ever fricking mind if you think I will agree to not do something that you turn around and say you won't stop doing. That's so full of bullshit that it reeks. And it entirely reflects what your intent is here, which is to squelch me and inflate yourself. You also have a long history of wikistalking and harassing editors with whom you have a beef, and you have turned that tactic on me, so don't expect me to agree to something that you flatly say you won't do. And once again, you are making threats to "escalate things". It is way past time you stopped dropping your threats everywhere you go. I didn't "choose" to pick a fight. In fact, you are the one who picked the fight, with me and with the IP editor whom you trashed with bad faith statements about him or her. In reply to your bad faith section title here, I don't personally believe you have any intention of any sort of sincerity involving me, since you repeatedly make the "escalation" threat and referencing the statements you've made at AN/I. I sincerely believe you don't intend to be satisfied until you think you can accomplish getting me banned, that's the bottom line here. What you want is to attack and wikistalk and be tendentious and contentious right up to the point where you can brag to someone else that you've been in lots of disputes and you always win and your opponents are gone. And that's nearly an exact quote from you. And no, I agreed some time ago to participate in mediation when I wrote to Rossrs. That is the second time you've claimed that I just agreed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)