User talk:Jenniferpowell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Jenniferpowell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Thank you for your contribution Anna Throndsen. You probably should cleanup the reference links, however. Putting them in single brackets [ ] works pretty well. For more information, see WP:CITE. Also, although not required if there are references, an external links section is a good idea to help establish the notability of the article and direct readers to more information. Danski14 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
~~JenniferPowell
Hello Danski. I'm actually an experienced wikipedian, aka. "istia". I didn't want to put my professional name under my private postings, hence the new name.
Much of what is written about Anna Throndsen is poor, as the English historians tended to know little about Danish or Norweigan nobility, and they treat the poor woman as if she were a nobody, which she was not. This is especially the case when it is discussed that she may have written the casket letters. The immediate reaction of English historians is that "a Norwegian could not have known French that well", which is pretty naiive considering the fact that Anna was from one of the most noble families in Norway, and that at that time people of that level spoke French fluently. Moreover, she grew up in Copenhagen, as her father went to work for Kong Fredrick III after the Dano-Norwegian conflict of 1536 was resolved (and her father forgiven and given a Danish government post).
I am a descendant of Anna's sister Magdalena, which is why I bother to know such information. I also read Norwegian, and much of the information about Anna isn't in English.
I'll clean it up as time goes by. :)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Skottefrue2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skottefrue2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Business & Economics project! Egfrank 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Harassment Policy
I urge all men from the part of the world where there are problems with women's rights to KNOCK OFF the harassment of me, and the page on a woman's rights organization to which I added.
I pray for the woman who lives in the company of such attitudes. Jenniferpowell
Irishguy - I wrote you a message on your talk page. These kids are harassing me, and the page I edited. Thanks in advance for your support.
- No, you are harassing others. Blanking warnings won't change that fact. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it might seem that way, but three guys from this region jumped all over the site, and made up false rumors about advertising (describing the work of an NGO is NOT advertising, sorry) to justify deletion.
I had no idea that writing on the Administrator Board wasn't allowed. I've never written to the administrator.
These kids are being harassing. No question.
- They aren't kids simply because you disagree with them. Nor are they anti-women because your advertisement was reverted...and it was an advertisement. Stop attacking other editors. That is your final warnings. IrishGuy talk 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude - Do you not REALIZE that this is writing about an organization, and what she does for her work, and why she won a prize? THAT IS NOT ADVERTISEMENT. I removed the part about where to donate to her. That is enough. Writing about her work is not an advertisement. Capiche?
Now do I have to ask you permission to put the information about her agency online, or what? Seriously. Jenniferpowell
[edit] Hello
Hello, Jennifer. I'm a bit concerned that you're editing quite angrily, and causing quite a lot of offence in the process. Things like [1], [2] and [3] are especially concerning. Even if you are angry and even if the people you direct those comments at are being a problem (and that's an if), then you simply cannot direct that kind of vitriol at them. It does nothing but make things quickly worse. Now, this is unfortunate, but I have to give you a warning that if you do make another edit of that kind - and 'that kind' has a wide interpretation - you will find yourself blocked from editing. By way of avoiding that, you might consider putting Wikipedia down for a day or so and see how you feel later. Splash - tk 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
IrishGuy talk 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should not have got so angry, but those guys were making up reasons to mess with the article.
Writing about the woman's work, for which she won awards, is not an advertisement, sorry. And it is an NGO, by the way. Writing about a legally established (and famous) organization is NOT advertisement. I have posted for several sites in my work professionally, working in human rights.
If you find that adding the information about her NGO to be advertisement, you should also delete the International_Red_Cross, which has the same legal standing as MMWWO, the agency that this woman founded.
Frankly, I found it striking that three men from that part of the world jumped all over the article.
One of them threatened me on an administrator site, and I wrote on that site - which I've never done - which was an attempt to communicate, not to be a vandal. On the contrary.
Kindly unblock my account.
- You repeatedly made disparaging remarks about other editors based on their geographical locations/sex/religion. After being blocked you did it again! Clearly you don't understand the guidelines on civility. Now you have 24 hours to read them. I highly doubt another admin will unblock you. IrishGuy talk 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I"m not an admin, and I'm not replying regarding your unblock, but to clarify some of the MANY problems with your edits. I found your situation through WP:AN/I, and looked things over. The problem is with your wirting style. Your edits aren't factual statements about the works, they are grossly biased promotional materials. While her efforts are admirable, and may have had good results, you canot write about them on Wikipedia with such foolishly biased phrases as 'by the grace of g-d'. Further, nothing you have added has any citation at all. Unless you can learn to comply with wikipedia policy, you will likely find yourself blocked again for similar conflicts. I suggest you use the block time to review the WP:MOS. That might help. ThuranX 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that I jumped to conclusions about these men. I apologize for that. However, I did find it striking that they jumped all over this. Really.
The grace of God stuff, I had cut and pasted, to be fair. That could have stood an edit. (though I wouldn't call talking about God being biased, any more than most writing is biased, frankly - I didnt write that, and I wouldn't have written it).
Now really - blocking me for complaining about what I felt was a sexist attack is unfair. I live outside the US, and I'm frankly not used to everyone jumping all over you if you make assumptions about someone based on *any* sort of characteristics. It is so extreme that when I accuse some guys of being sexist, *I* am accused of making a sexist attack (!) which is just backwards.
We Americans find it terribly offensive to mention anything differentiating in human beings (because everyone is supposed to be equal in the USA) but outside the US, it isn't like that at all (for better and worse). Sometimes it is rude and even I dont appreciate it. Sometimes it is just more direct. And honest.
I wasn't aware of some of the wiki guidelines, and I now am.
However, to write about her organization is not advertisement. Full stop. To cut it out is censorship. I can understand not liking the part about donations, fine. But the other stuff is ok.
I probably overreacted a bit as I've been reading a lot about this region in the past week, and some of the stuff I've read is just shocking. Jenniferpowell
- How is it that you still fail to admit that you did something wrong? It is not OK to make assumptions about others and label them based on your assumptions. There was no sexist attack. The only namecalling/attacking came from you. Additionally, if you were cutting and pasting to add info you were violating copyright laws. Please don't do that. IrishGuy talk 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
