User talk:Joestella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cumberland Plain 2 WP:SOURCE 3 Michael Costa 4 User 212.15.173.216 5 Protracted revert warning

[edit] Cumberland Plain

Do you think a merge between cumberland Plain and Cumberland County would be appropiate. User:Mindys12345
You can check out the merge for cumberland county (if you want). Thanks

[edit] WP:SOURCE

Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. DXRAW 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. ... However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template... Joestella 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not cause any disruption. You have the burden not me. DXRAW 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the policy's intent. "If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template." You can't seriously have assumed I made those quotes up. Joestella 08:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand anything. DXRAW 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Costa

Noting the election ad photo on the Costa page, does the re-election of the Iemma Government mean Costa, Sartor and Tripodi now have an actual mandate to "call the shots"? Jeendan 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I didn't vote for them. Joestella 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 212.15.173.216

Hi. You recently gave user 212.15.173.216 (talk • contribs) a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning for this edit. Personally, I would not classify that edit as vandalism ("any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"). As someone who sees way too much obvious vandalism, could I ask you to be more cautious in applying that word to edits which could be well-intentioned? Thanks, CWC 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That Maxine McKew spat is ongoing. It would be a stretch to consider the edits by Maxine's fan club to be well-intentioned. Joestella 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protracted revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western Australian general election, 2005. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. DanielT5 12:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn I waited 24 hours before my last edit there. But then, that's no excuse. Here's an idea. You keep the WA pages in line with the standard, and contribute to the development of that standard, and I'll do the same with NSW and the ACT. Joestella 13:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

you have gone to 2RR 10 times across 3 articles by my count in the past month. note the exact wording of the warning above. "waiting 24 hours" to do a disruptive edit does not make it any less bad. see: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and also WP:DE DanielT5 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's almost as though you posted your reply without reading mine. But thankyou, DanielT5, for visiting my contributions page, one of Wikipedia's most popular. Joestella 13:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

i do apologise, i noticed the first line before anything else. the NSW and ACT pages have nothing to do with me, i'm focussed on the WA ones and improving those. I'm happy to keep doing that. I'm putting together a lever arch file (got about 100 photocopies already) from which a few of us are going to do a SA-like herculean effort to get the older elections in from reliable sources. if we can agree to end this silly revert war then maybe WP:AUSPOL will be the better for it and we'll start getting quality articles instead of time spent at AfD and having to defend existing (inferior) versions. DanielT5 13:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(Posted on both talk pages)

I really hate to intervene here, but I can see where this is going and I don't want it to go there. I admit that some of my own posts and edit summaries on topics related to these pages have been ill-considered and written with a slightly hot head. Joestella has admitted that waiting 24 hours was no excuse for continuing a revert war. DanielT5 has admitted he jumped before looking in his first reply-to-a-reply above. Everyone seems to acknowledge we need a standard, although disagreement exists as to which standard. Both of you were more measured on consideration, and I think we need to build on that. Anything that escalates this - from any of us - is a bad thing. I hope Joestella will reconsider his comments on DanielT5's talk page and I likewise hope DanielT5 would be willing to tone down his comments at the AFD as a mutual sign of good faith from which we can proceed. This dispute is not getting WP:AUSPOL anywhere, and I think fundamentally we are actually all trying to achieve the same thing in our own little areas. I feel what is needed is just a bit more consideration and a bit less enforcement on all sides. Orderinchaos 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)