User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

In Reference To Danny

While he may have certain privelidges as a representative of the foundation, he does not have the right to abuse those privelidges to further the cause of a personal gripe. Removing comments is a controversial act at the best of times, but a representative of the foundation removing them because they ask questions that he doesn't want people asking is outrageous. My aim is to resolve the issue diplomatically, and through the rules established here on Wikipedia - while he may be able to circumvent these rules somewhat, that doesn't mean it's good or constructive to do so, especially not in this case. --Badharlick 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny explained nothing - his "explaination" as you call it was vague and smacked of a coverup, which smacked of the same kind of attitude evidenced by the admins toward the whole Daniel Brandt issue. That is, like it or get out, and destroy anything that might compromise the pure and clean image of the godly wikipedia. Most pathetic. --Badharlick 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the comments he removed were nothing to do with any members who had left, they were all comments about the article, questioning the nature of it's existance. I've looked back through the edit history many times and seen some very good points being raised that were later removed. I couldn't give a flying shit about Brandt, to be honest I think he's a whiney ass, but what does concern me is this squelching of opinions by higher ups with an agenda. --Badharlick 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more specific; The comments he removed were not in specific reference to the person who left, they were in reference to the way that Brandt was accused of phoning this person at their workplace, an action of Brandt, not (the user in question). DDD DDD was discussing how this was assumed to be fact despite the fact that neither side had any proof, and that when Brandt attempted to clear his name, his messages were removed. It seems to me that innocent actions have been used as an excuse for, or to disguise, malicious (for want of a better word) actions, and this would be the issue that has been disguised. There were no issues of respect, nobody was badgering the person, questioning (her) integrity, or disrespecting (her) in any way. In other words, in my opinion, there was no reason to delete those messages. Maybe my opinion was wrong, and if you can convince me that it was then I'll concede that, but until then I'll remain satisfied with my view that it was no more than squelching. --Badharlick 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (modified to remove user name by JoshuaZ 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)).

For the record, Joshua, you were the one who raised the still unproven claim that Brandt called and harassed another user. No one else. So, supporting Danny here seems to be trying to cover your backside. I still see no reason why you made that schoolyard claim. As I have said, and I believe Badharlick has as well, we are trying to raise the level of discussion here. While I was trying to ask questions in a civil manner, your 'he said, she said' comments were really inappropriate.DDD DDD 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments about the user who left that weren't in my opinion disrespectful, were removed by Danny, because Katefan0 has the right to have something removed if it's about him/her and he/she doesn't want it there for privacy reasons. Yet when Brandt does the same, he's ignored, even insulted, simply because he has a website bashing Wikipedia - doesn't that tell you that we are letting him get to us a little bit too much? Seems pretty selective use of "rules" if you ask me. I'll accept that maybe Danny had the power to do that, but as I explained to Theresa, I don't believe it was the right circumstances to have used that power. Either way, a talk page is a talk page, and as far as I see it, unless someone is genuinely invading someone's privacy or insulting/disrespecting them, then there's no need to remove comments, especially when other comments on the page that were disrespectful have not been removed - which is why I left a vandalism reminder on their respective talk pages. Maybe that wasn't the right thing to do, but I strongly felt that something had to be done to remind both of them that they're answerable to the rules too, just like everyone else, and must endeavour to not only follow them, but set a good example for others to follow.--Badharlick 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely and positively agreed. Looking back I can see now that I acted before I was aware of the rules, or who Danny or Theresa was (in other words I acted too hastily). In my defense I have to say that it is rather difficult to know all the rules, I'm constantly learning or finding out about new ones, or to know in advance which users are admins or foundation members - sometimes it's not even shown on their page. At any rate, I enjoyed chewing over the matter with someone so articulate and reasonable, so thankyou. And your comment "or telekinetically moving electrons in the servers." had me laughing. I think what this comes down to here is not knowing all the facts before looking into the situation, and what I've learned form this is that in future I should STOP, THINK, and FIND ALL THE FACTS before I come to a HASTY conclusion. If there isn't already a Wikipedia policy on this, there should be. I'm satisfied that there isn't any real problem surrounding Brandt, Wikipedia policy can indeed be unfortunate at times but it's there for a reason, and that reason is that for the majority of cases it keeps everything sane. Thankyou for being so patient, and I sincerely hope that I did not waste any of your time. Thanks to you I can now further my cause of bettering Wikipedia in a more constructive manner. :) --Badharlick 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane

I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block for User:CrazyInSane. I find nothing in what you have written there, the diffs you supplied at WP:AN/I, or in his recent contribution history to justify any block and certianly not an indefinite block. I am concerned at your apparent lack of discussion with the user prior to blocking. It is normal to warn people and to proceed through an escalation of warnings - at the very least from {{blatantvandal}} to blocked. You do that before going to WP:AN/I. Can you please explain to me what it is that exhausted the community's patience.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you did fine here. Responding to User:AYArktos above, {{blatantvandal}} would be wrong as User:CrazyInSane wasn't a vandal. You reported it on AN/I, you listed evidence, you explained your actions. There was some discussion about lessening the block and filing an RfC, which you did and said you would, respectively. You did well, IMO. JDoorj a m Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not think the user is a blatant vandal, nor necessarily would that template have been appropriate, but it is a warning template with a one-off escalation point. Others, generally require more escalation - see the grid of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If you can't justify a warning, thereby clarifying your objections to his behaviour and allowing a response or modification of behaviour, how can you justify a block? Also, please don't get me wrong, I don't endorse the user's POV, but I most strenuously object to gagging him without going through appropriate escalation procedures which either allow him to modify his behaviour or to have gathered community concensus (does not = 2 other's comments unless no-one else joins in the publicly available discussion in an appopriate forum, eg RfC). I still have difficulties with the length of time of the block because of the lack of warnings and lack of recent related blocking history.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not Voltaire but Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and the reason it is overused is because freedom of speech is overly threatened but some of us do need to clarify that we are actually indifferent to the AD/BC debate vs CE, it is the gagging, in this case blocking, that we object to. You had not clarified earlier that the week long block is for sockpuppet abuse. As stated before I do support blocking a sockpuppet. However, I note the user was upfront that he was using a sockpuppet and was doing so to put his side of the story. Reference his contributions - NewUser0001 (talk · contribs), they were not to continue POV edits and he declared who he was. His use of a sockpuppet would not have been necessary if you had warned him before blocking him and allowed him to discuss the problem areas with you.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct on where the quote comes from. As for his sockpuppetry, look at this dif where he declares that he will evade the block with more sockpuppets if the block stays [1]. JoshuaZ 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case I assume good faith. He doesn't say he will avoid the block, he says he will monitor the article. The article is the editing experience the user and I have in common and we now go back quite some months on it. I have always found his behaviour there to be fine. When I challenged him in the early stages of the article [2] with violations of WP:NOR, he responded politely and with citations. I have never found him to lie. He does push his POV, but I find I can cope and that he is not disruptive like some I am dealing with: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* - and that anon goes on and on - more recent carryings on partly documented on RfC's talk page. So by comparison ... :-) I don't want to escalate to an RfC but I would like you to warn users before blocking them in future please. I have no doubt that you too are acting in good faith :-) Regards --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he would not edit the article he said he would monitor it from various IPs. Why he would mention the various IPs unless he was intending to edit is beyond me, so AGF here seems to be a bit strained, especially given his history of sockpuppetry. As for warning users more in the future, you seem to be not the only user who feels that way. I shall endeavor in the future to warn users more before escalating to long term blocks. JoshuaZ 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Experts and Wikipedia

You said: "More to the point- Wikipedia does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is not true for technical areas, which is where my confusion comes from. e.g., From uric acid "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can...." Pproctor 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an expert who can help improve the article under the constrains of NPOV, RS etc. Experts will have more knowledge on how to track down sources and such, but there is no fundamental reliance or trust given to experts. JoshuaZ 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How's it going?

I hope the inevitable kickback is not getting to you. I said I'd post the gory details, I did that at User:JzG/Laura, I think you saw. I'm now moving house. I shall do my best not to get divorced, two out of the three top stress producers is probably enough... Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't get a new job either! Oops - sorry to butt in there. Your story is very moving. I have a sister too. Stephen B Streater 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a moving essay. You have my condolences, and as I have said before, if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. JoshuaZ 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi JoshuaZ. Thank you for your questions. Before I answer them, could you please clarify question #3? Thanks. G.H e 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Er yes. I'm not sure what I was trying to say there. I've removed it. JoshuaZ 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi again. Your questions are now answered and are available on my RfA page. G.H e 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hello again Joshua,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm truly glad I recieved your approval—your pragmatic approach to conflicts and your careful analysis of RFAs, AFDs, etc. has changed the way I approach things on wikipedia. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

NPOV tag on Apollo Moon Hoax Accusations

There has been considerable back and forth edits removing and adding the NPOV tag. I believe it should stay for reasons I've stated on the talk page. the most vocal hoax theorist keeps reverting it claiming that my reasons given for adding the tag are not valid. I don't want to run afoul of edit or revert war, but lack the wiki-experience that would allow me to move forward if that is possible. It may be the that hoax theorist editor is intractable. They certainly don't seem to engage appropriately in the discussion on the talk page -- i.e personal attacks, failure to AGF, blatent POV edits, etc. Please advise. Numskll 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of different problems on that page, not all from the hoax theorists. I will stop by later today or tommorow. JoshuaZ 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies

Joshua, in your discussion with new user Schlafly, your responded to him in a decidedly unhelpful way. Specifically, you begged the question and changed the subject, when he criticized the ID articles for bias. When someone explains what is wrong with an article, it's not helpful to say, "Anyway, the article is pretty good overall." We should help him fix it! --Uncle Ed 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not sure which of my comments you think had biting problems. I would appreciate if you could point them out. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Welcome to the light side of the Force. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste of space

Thanks for the extra info on the Bulgarian music scene. In view of that, I have now changed my vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waste_of_time#.5B.5BWaste_of_time.5D.5D to a delete. --BrownHairedGirl 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Carmodities

Did you read a) the article? b) the AFD?

It was spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, glorious spam. It was also a vanity article, for a non-notable company, and it was also a neologism that the non-notable company had invented to promote itself in its own spam.

Enough for you? DS 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read the article and the AfD. However, your closing remark puzzled me slightly since neologism and spam are not by themselves reasons for speedy deletion. Vanity is A7. I was puzzled however because you deleted it saying "The result was delete as spam" which doesn't make sense since spam is not speediable by itself(I think). JoshuaZ 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ageo020 user page.

Hi,

About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks

User:Ageo020

User talk:68.200.41.177

Thanks for getting onto that. I was going at full speed with three screens open and I couldn't keep up with him! - Richardcavell 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aussie pingu trivia

At User talk:Aussie pingu you gave a last warning for vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism, but who first contributed an article on St Francis of Assisi Primary School which appeared innocuous but not notable. I've flagged it for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good work, ..dave souza, talk 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Harun Yahya

A problem of vandalism in Harun Yahya page is going on. Need your atttention. Please. Jitt 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewarding Jitt's request. Jeff5102 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I'll withdraw it now; next time maybe you could nominate me! --TheM62Manchester 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER

Just notifying you of the expired block and that if you are going to make a RfC for my username I am ready to respond. — ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of that. I intend to file the RfC in a few hours. JoshuaZ 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

for the comment on WP:AN - I laughed quite immoderately :-D Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on my RfA

Thanks for checking that page, good to know there wasn't some grand mistake I'm just forgetting about. I wouldn't mind seeing what it was there, if you'd email it to me. I believe my email link should be turned on (though it's seemed to turn itself back off randomly in the past). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sent. JoshuaZ 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formal confirmation?

I already have: [3] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. JoshuaZ 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


Volume 2, Issue 32	7 August 2006	About the Signpost

Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous	False death information survives for a month in baseball biographies
Wikiversity officially announced by Wales	Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
Wales, others announce new projects at Wikimania	Wikipedia satire leads to vandalism, protections
Early history of Wikipedia reviewed	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

[4] Thanks! --Durin 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA

Hi JoshuaZ!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I thank you for your comments and I'll definitely look into them. :)

G.H e 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robdurbar

Unfortunately I did find the message in question in the users talk page about the vandalism. I also feel certain activity posts were too low, and should have been made before attempting to become admin. My oppose vote still continues to stand. --Masssiveego 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

You and I have never interacted, or at least never on a significant level, which is why I am asking you for assistance. I am tired. I want to leave, but not with bullshit on my talkpage. JzG has protected my talkpage and altered a disclaimer I put up, along with deleting the comments of several users he doesnt like. He has made clear, both through his edit summaries and ongoing harassment that he wishes me to leave. As a compromise, I will leave if the disclaimer he posted on my talkpage is removed and replaced with: "I am no longer editing under this account." Nothing more than that, and nothing less. Then I'll leave. For Good. Tchadienne 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an amusing caricature of the truth, since the one removing comments they didn't like was Tchadienne, hence the problem. See WP:ANI right now for the emerging consensus on this particular user. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ParalellUni

Please consider extending his block for a further 48 hours for personal attacks on JzG made on his talk page. I'm sure JzG feels he can't do this himself. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, have you consider becoming an admin? JoshuaZ 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin's looking in to my rap sheet. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware he had you listed on his stalking page. I wouldn't mind doing a joint nom with him if he decides to nominate you (although he may have issues with joint noms, I don't rememeber). JoshuaZ 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found this while reviewing Thacther131's talk page contribs Stalking page? Stalking page! Wow :) I hope you mean that nicely! It's *FAR* from being a stalking page. People don't get there unless I think well of them for some reason :) --Durin 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not long enough.

48 hours is not long enough. No one would protest indef. JBKramer 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While his edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt, I'd rather not indefinitely block him since 1) some users respond very negatively to their first block but later become more productive 2) I don't see a compelling policy justification for a much longer block since his previous incivility has been mild and he received no earlier blocks. If however, another admin wishes to increase the block time, I will not object. JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two cents from a non-admin if that's okay. The edits in question were the most offensive I've ever seen here (and given that I tend to follow WP:ANI and WP:RfAr, that's saying something). And, unlike most uncivil or uncivilized comments, where a user says something that pops into his head and then can't take it back, in this instance, the user took the time to stroll over the JzG's userspace and figure out precisely what would be the most offensive things he could come up with. I find blocks of any length regrettable except in cases of absolute necessity and occasionally lobby to commute them (just the other day I was trying to help out a younger user who got in over his head with sniping about a wrestling page, and I've also posted to one of the arbitrators about an unwarranted block proposal in a pending case) ... but there are limits.

I do see (only) two counter-arguments to an extremely lengthy block here. The first is that the user needs access to the arbitration pages for the pending case. The second is that upon being able to edit again, we will see if there is any repetition of the remarks that were directed against JzG, which if it occurred would be likely to result in an uncontroversial community ban. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you. Once again I am in debt to you for handling something you shouldn't have had to deal with. ParalelUni's anon edit to User talk:JzG/Laura is probably the most contemptible thing I have seen on Wikipedia. I'm used to a bit of robust debate, but that was calculated and vile. Some things are hard to laugh off. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Your RfA

I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to them as completely as I could. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm an open book. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me

You just gave a 24 hour block to an AOL IP, and like most AOL blocks, there's no sign of vandalism, and the blocking summary doesn't make any sense, so unless this involves some sort of situation with deleted pages, that may be hiding vandalistic edits, I'd like to ask that the block be lifted so that I can continue to comment about dark matter--152.163.100.137 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP is now unblocked. Let me know if you have any further problems. JoshuaZ 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi JoshuaZ. Thanks for replying to that creationist on my talk page. I was a little snowed under with work, so was grateful for the intervention. Not that it did a lot of good. The whole exchange reminded me, again, that most of the time there's really no arguing with these people. It's just not possible to make any headway. Still, always worth trying, since you never know when you might make a difference. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize

JoshuaZ, your repeated removal of Evolution and reference from Pseudoscience appears to be vandalism. I have explained in edit summaries how this entry meets the criterion for the list in the article. The criterion states (currently) that the items listed have critics that state that part or all of an item listed has elements of pseudoscience. I realize that your POV may be contrary to some of these critics, but as a Wikipedia administrator, I would have thought you would know better than to censor such criticism. ^ross ^nixon 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading WP:RS. JoshuaZ 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So that's why you removed it. You should have said! However, on checking my ref, I find that the "The Roman Theological Forum" are a group of european and american scholars who have been regularly publishing well referenced articles for about 20 years. I have also found them used as Wikipedia references on other pages. Could you please explain why you find them to be an unreliable source? ^ross ^nixon 11:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it for a variety of reasons, but I didn't have much time earlier so I gave you the most important one. For one, the RTF is a minority extremist group of (as I understand) largely reactionary anti-V2 Catholics, hardly a reliable source. Furthermore, it is hard to see how Evolution meets the criteria of being a theory of field of "endeavor that [is] characterized in part or whole as pseudoscientific by various scientific, philosophic, journalistic or other sources." A theological essay does not meet those criteria. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Godless

Hi, thanks for this: [5] --Uncle Ed 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

I saw my page linked to User:Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas where you accused me of being a sockpuppet.

I am not a sockpuppet. I'm not tagged as a sockpuppet and there is no clue, nor evidence, showing that i'm a sockpuppet.

I did no vandalism nor sockpuppetry as demonstrated by my blog Vous Ai Compris !!

The only connection with Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas is i've corrected a mistake i've noticed on his talk page.

The conclusion is your socketpuppet accusation is nothing but a clueless racist and abusive accusation based on the clueless "best guess" of another racist and abusive editor. Shame on you! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry, are you saying that the variety of sockpuppets which did show up to remove the tag are in fact yours? In either case, take it up with Kingboy who marked it as a puppet as such. Oh, and calling editors racist and abusive is unproductive and violates WP:NPA. If you continue at it, you will be blocked. JoshuaZ 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

And I'd bet you're right, too -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

MiloMein

This guy is frantically appealing his block. For reasons I've given on his talk page, my sockpuppet sense is tingling, and I wonder if you have any further evidence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a sock of banned user User:ParalelUni. See [6] and [7] for more. JoshuaZ 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

My email should now be verified. --Davril2020 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, you might want to make some comments at this RFAR in respect of the usual problems experienced with editing of articles on unaccredited private universities by students and staff. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I'll add in an evidence section sometime tonight (EST). JoshuaZ 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

im not a vandalist

About your corrections of my definition of Flying Spaghetti Monster

Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parodic religion! so obvious , but parodic it´s an adjective ,not a definition.

I think the main goal of this "religion" its that ultra religious people start to think more criticism about her/his own religions. And to do that, you must put on the same level. So, the definition "religion" as is, its quite accurate.

P.D: What its parodic? a man walking over the sea?

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no difference.

First, I didn't say you were a vandal, if I had thought your edit was vandalism, I would have used the rollback button. Second, the difference is partially one of intent-no one actually believes in the FSM, so in that sense it is a parody. JoshuaZ 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

new RfArb

Sorry to butt in, in your statement I think you meant RfArb, not RfA. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Er, yes. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Your RfA

Hello! Hope you are feeling fine. I have answered your question in my RfA to the best of my ability. Hope that my answer proves to be satisfactory to you. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to have some clarification about this question you posed to me: While your above answer does indicate an understanding of the AfD policy, is there anyway you can address the general concern raised at the previous RfA that this answer indicated a general lack(?) of policy knowledge? Should the question be: While your above answer does indicate an understanding of the AfD policy, is there anymore points in which you can address the general concern raised at the previous RfA that the answers you gave there indicated a general lack of policy knowledge? Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have answered your question to the best of my ability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer and Dominionism

You had written in part: "unsourced POV and not relevant to the matter at hand." What would be recognized by you as "sourced POV and relevant to the matter at hand?" Awinger48 14:47 EST, 17 August 2006.

The issue at hand was that you added the claims that "But Schaeffer should instead be known as one of the foremost leaders in the sanctity of life movement especially where it concerns abortion" this claim is POV because it talks about "should" be known as and is unsourced. If you had a source for the statement it would be sourced POV and still problematic. JoshuaZ 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was come up with something that is similar to what is written here without copying it: Schaeffer and the Christian Right. Is there someway of putting a link in the paragraph that would go to this section in the Francis Schaeffer entry? Then you would have the source you need and it probably would not be "problematic." Awinger48 19:45, 17 August 2006. (UTC)

Hmm, well that whole section is not sourced itself, but I suppose that's a problem for a different day. A comment to the affect that "There is some doubt that Schaeffer in fact has the dominionist views with which he is credited. See Schaeffer and the Christian Right." or something like that would probably be fine. JoshuaZ 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU SIR :-)) Awinger48 22:12, 17 August 2006. (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk removed what you authorized me to add as a revision saying, "(rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ). I put the addition back in. I added an explanation at User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Authorized_Revision_of_Dominionism_Entry referring him back to this talk session with you. I also added an explanation to the Dominionism discussion page at Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches. -- Awinger48 13:28, 18 August 2006. (UTC)

Siva 1979 RfA

I wondered if you'd noticed my suggestion. I think it could be useful if he was asked about some specific basic aspects, which he might be expected to know at this point, if you wished to pursue your initial doubts. Tyrenius 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd prefer not to quiz candidates. I'm currently working my way through Siva's contributions and trying to judge policy knowledge based on that. This has the advantage that it shows how he uses/understands policy in an actual working environment. JoshuaZ 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I presume your conclusions will appear on the RfA. Tyrenius 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott

Why? I've been blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system" by following policy and posting my 4th revert just outside the 24 hour. Yet Netscott gets away with going against a consensus and reverting 5 times in 8 hours!

Why? Can someone explain this? Deuterium 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to warn "vandals"- reply

It may be a good faith edit, but I could have sworn I used the rollback option, and not a warning. 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)~

That warning was done on the 15th, when he was doing his editing w/o any explaination as to his edit, in a way that made him look like a vandal. Check the history of the article. Rsm99833 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Three admins suggesting a block

You know you've got User:PinchasC [8] and User:Bishonen [9] suggesting Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs blocking with you being the only dissenting voice. Would you kindly take steps in accord with others? (→Netscott) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

With his report now sitting prominently on his user page obviously nothing's been prevented. (→Netscott) 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Add User:AYArktos to the list. (→Netscott) 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi Joshua. No problem. -- Szvest 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that call, Josh. It seemed rather odd that a protection was placed on it. Is FayssalF an actual admin? Was a request placed? Rsm99833 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal is an admin. As for why he choose to semi-protect, you should probably ask him. I don't think their was a request on the protection page though (it was getting vandalism from two editors a few hours ago, but nothing that severe). JoshuaZ 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Thought it would work itself out, considering how minor it was. Have a good week! Rsm99833 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail msg

I seem to have missed your message. Perhaps there was some kind of problem with my Gmail account while I was away; it's working fine now so you may want to resend (or feel free to use my talk page).

Thanks,

AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not currently doing anything"

In regards to your comment on iav. He violated 3RR, repeatedly removing speedy tags every few minutes. I reported him only a few minutes after his third removal of the tag, how is that not doing anything?--Crossmr 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I made my comment after the article had been deleted. I intended to give him a sterner warning (since all his warnings were level 1 or 2) and then observe, but I was beaten to that. JoshuaZ 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Female mathematicians

Wikipedia is not fun, but contentious. See the latest stuff to delete bio of Roberta Wenocur. They wiped out bio on Elaine Zanutto. Maybe I will stop contributing. Is this a power trip for some people? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as a "good deed", but it seems to be "Truthiness" -- Truth by Democracy, with an in-crowd of power-hungry people with a lot of time on their hands. You were fair, but many are not. I suspect gender bias, also, among many. MathStatWoman 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Views on the fossil record

Joshua, thanks for your "prepublication" feedback at the RFarb. [10]

The vast majority of young earth creationists do not reject the Fossil record but claim that they are interpreting the record differently. This is an important distinction.

I should have made it clear that what YECs reject is not the existence of the fossil record but its authenticity. Real scientists (like geologists and biologists) all agree (1) that fossils show actual animals and plants that lived long ago and (2) that carbon dating shows that they lived much, much longer than 10,000 years ago.

YECs might concede the first point, but they vigorously reject the second point, right? --Uncle Ed 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, most major YEC organizations such as AnswersinGenesis and ICR agree that all the fossils are real but claim that they are much younger than they appear for various reasons. For example, they frequently claim that the vast majority of fossils were created in Noah's flood and that the intense heat and pressure somehow makes them look old. Pseudo-omphalytic explanations are only found rarely in YEC literature and are for more frequently found in parodies or straw-men. JoshuaZ 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea about Julia Robinson

Someone should work on Julia Robinson's bio, but Constance Reid is not really a mathematician, but a biographer.

But if living mathematicians and scientists are not to be included even if their work has led to something like restoring hearing, then the male mathematician's bios should be deleted, too, to be consistent and fair: Herbert Wilf, John Allen Paulos, etc. However, I think that is not the way to go. More info, not less, seems good, doesn't it? Instead we keep all of these bios and keep improving them: men and women alike. MathStatWoman 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana Irey

JzG semi-protected a page from clear vandalism, and that semi-protection was pulled off by a new user who has only made edits at that article. I think the anon. IP and that user are the same. Diana Irey is currently a candiate int he 2006 elections. C56C 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

C56C had previously levelled a bogus complaint against me in which he has referred to two other articles that I edit (and against which he has launched POVer attacks); hence, he demonstrably knows that I edit other articles besides the Irey piece. Well before C56C began his POVer attacks on the Diana Irey article, I was wrestling against MRMKJason (the editor whom C56C alleges me to be) in attempting to remove what I saw as pro-Republican bias; further, my English is simply better than that of MRMKJason. JzG did not carefully examine any of the charges made by C56C:

JzG did not check what C56C claimed to be an “official” transcript against the source at MSNBC.
JzG id not check to see whether indeed I was editing only one article.
JzG did not compare my history of edits against those of MRMKJason to see whether we were plausibly the same editor.

Further, JzG went on to claim that I had not discussed or debated the changes that I had made, when in fact virtually the only discussion had come from me. There is no plausible explanation of JzG's actions which reflects well upon him. —12.72.72.94 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit war. I stopped it. That was what I was asked to do, so that's what I did, in the way which seemed simplest at the time. If you have failed to persuade other editors of the merits of your case since, then that is not really my fault; if your case were as unambiguously persuasive as you appear to believe then surely you should have had no problem carrying the debate? Edit warring is evil, and there are a fair few admins who are more than willing to step in if a biography of a living individual is being biased towards the critical, with the current atmosphere it should be trivially easy to get changes made if they are well cited from reliable secondary sources and improve the neutrality of the article. If you have a problem with C56C or me, then you are welcom to use one of the various dispute resolution methods. Finally, please note that all page protections are at the wrong version. Guy 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't just stop it; I have noted repeatedly what else you did. No, it isn't your fault that I couldn't persuade the more vandalistic of the two groups that were biasing the article; rather, it is your fault that you didn't recognize them for what they were doing, but threw your weight behind them with your own edits. And it is even more shameful that, when you had the opportunity, you didn't correct any of your errors. Yes, it should be trivially easy to point to reliable sources — just as I pointed to the actual transcript (In the discussion in which you claimed I was not engaged) as opposed to C56C's “official” transcript (For a final, thorough exposé see “C56C's Transcript v. the Official Transcript”.) — and get changes made, but we live in the real world, which is inhabitted by people such as C56C and you, who don't do as they should, and there's little use in pretense otherwise. I have no confidence in the resolution methods of an institution in which you are an administrator; I'm willing to point at what you've done, but I won't be the fool or hero who tries to rescue Wikipedia. —12.72.69.88 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ID and RFArb

Please take back your comment about edit warring. You yourself made the suggestion that one of my edits (which another person reverted) should go back with the following phrasing:

After the intro sentence say something like "Proponents point in particular to the notions of specified complexity and irreducible complexity which they say cannot arise by natural selection alone. [11]

Or don't take it back. I'll just use it in Evidence as one more example of a false accusation, easily disprovable by diff's. I will ask, "How can it be edit warring if the very change I made is approved by the person who accuses me of edit warring?" --Uncle Ed 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, whether I agree with you in the following case doesn't make what you are doing not edit warring. JoshuaZ 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like you to make the strongest case possible and this will be completely ignored by the ArbCom unless you copy into Evidence. --Uncle Ed 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

...For cleaning up vandalism on my userpage! HawkerTyphoon 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS and kosher slaughter

None of the sources brought, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm , deal with the accusation that kosher slaughter is banned in these countries because of anti-Semitism. People keep reading the article, and saying "wait a minute, the ban was to protect animals from inhumane treatment, not because of anti-Semitism. I need to go and balance the article there, because the other side of the argument hasn't been shown". The problem is, they keep making up "the other argument", they don't quote someone else making it. What they need is a good source saying "however, the proponents of the ban insist their actions are not anti-Semitic, but rather simply to protect animals from unnecessary pain etc." The WP:NOR policy is quite clear; it specifically excludes material if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Moreover, it states that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. The argument FCYTravis is making has not been made by a reputable source, it has been made by FCYTravis. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Death

I added my two cents....I'm also thinking we should archive the old "definition of deaths in humans" threads, so that we don't have people commenting in the wrong place. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

John McGinness Bio

Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.

If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.

If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.

BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

John McGinness says:

"An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).

"Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

This alone ought to qualify him under WP:Prof

My wild guess is that over the years John has had hundreds of cites. See the links to pubmed.gov. below:

Dr McGinness' work on the role of reactive oxygen species in the toxicity of cisplatin gave rise to 93 publications, according to a Pubmed search

Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.

Pubmed cites 101 references related to Dr Mcginness' paper "Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin"

Also there isn't any need to spam your above message everywhere even to articles you have had nothing to do with. Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been chased all over the place, apparently by people who object to my defending creationist Raymond Damadian. I am tired of it. Maybe if I embarass the people involved, they will stop. Unfortunately, some of the true beleivers will harass their own allies for even the slightest deviation from the party line. Sorry if I put this face on you. Pproctor 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball

I was quite upset to learn of the outrageous mischaracterization in this edit by Rod Ball (talk · contribs), not only of what I know, have read, and have done at Wikipedia, but of what I myself told him about what I have read.

Can I ask you to revisit and verify one relevant point? You mentioned in your comment the inadequate citations offered in the current version of Bell's spaceship paradox. The reason for this lack is that in the course of lengthy edit wars with numerous other users including myself, Rod Ball removed the citations I had added to my much earlier and much more carefully crafted version, which you can see here. As you can see, I was careful to include judiciously chosen citations both to the mainstream and to dissident viewpoints.

As I say in my statement, Rod Ball's outrageous misrepresentations and refusal to accept even mathematical proof that he is wrong eventually led me to abandon my efforts to add content to the Wikipedia, which I count as just one of his sins, although perhaps not the least. It has been very upsetting to find out that in my absence he has been so outrageously misrepresenting my own efforts, not least because I spent so much time trying to carefully explain to him my views and the reasoning process by which I had arrived at them.---CH 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted my view accordingly. JoshuaZ 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stifle

Then what the hell is he doing? The comments are just wrong. Jim62sch 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs

Are the rules equal for all?

It seems that there are some users in Wikipedia not eligible to the general rules [12]--Nixer 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nixer

He just does not seem to give up. He takes every edit I do at Pluto as a revert, when my last edit was so minor it didn't even change the page length. Ryūlóng 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

You're an admin who's opinion I respect, since you helped me out with the trouble I had with Netscott. Some users, including admin Jayjg, are trying to delete an article written by me, Israel-South Africa relations, because it's a "POV fork" of Foreign relations of Israel.

I think this is really unfair because the article is extremely well sourced and balanced, Foreign relations of Israel is already quite large and there are many similar spin-off articles such as Israel-Venezuela relations. What do you think? Deuterium 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Holywarrior

Hi. I thought I should let you know that Holywarrior has made accusations against you that are very troubling in their tone. They are posted on his talk page (link is below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHolywarrior&diff=72161636&oldid=72033047

I was wondering if this can be construed as a violation of WP:Civil or WP:NPA.Thank you very much. Hkelkar 11:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see indeed only the three reversions by User:Holywarrior. And the statement "rv,even 3RR does not apply in such a case" doesn't claim the 3RR doesn't apply to him, but refers to WP:BLP. It is arguable whether WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material in fact applies, but I wouldn't consider it bad faith. --Pjacobi 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, and perhaps most importantly, just before the block User:Holywarrior and User:Hkelkar did seem to agree on a compromise version, as shown by [the article history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&action=history]. --Pjacobi 13:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 3RR does apply in this case, but the four reverts (edit nr. 5 is does not revert to the same version, but to a compromise suggestion by Hkelkar) are spread over more than 24 hours. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours, which are not technically a 3RRvio. Please be more careful before blocking, I do suggest you unblock the user, or at least shorten the block to 12 hours as a warning to not game the 3RR (which is not the same as straightforwardly violating it). (ᛎ) qɐp 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with dab. Holywarrior deserved every minute of the 25 hours he got.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reducing the block to time served and unblocking since the above makes a 12 hour block seem reasonable and it has been 12 hours. Additionally, since a compromise version was made the block serves no constructive purpose. JoshuaZ 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) I have given a longer explanation of my decision on Holywarrior's talk page. JoshuaZ 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You should warn the person of breaching the 3RR before blocking him. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The user was already aware of 3RR. Warnings are only necessary when there is some doubt that the user knows about the rule. JoshuaZ 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLOCK carefully? You need to warn the user atleast once before performing a block. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out where it says this? JoshuaZ 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is misleading others by repeatedly saying,I violated 3RR.Can he present the four diffs here that amounts to this violation.Regarding gaming,again he misleads others by distorting my edit summary.I had said even 3RR does not apply in this case simply refering to provisions under biography of living persons ,not what Joshua is spreading---3RR does not apply on me.This admin not only blocked me unjustifiably but mischiviously remained silent even after my repeated requests.I have NO TROLLING HISTORY.Holy|Warrior 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS----> Only 3 of the reverts occured within a 24 hour timespan even though there were four reverts.

I think this is a highly misleading comment put up by joshua on my talk page.There are other too, but let me sort out this one first.Holy|Warrior 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I am closing this matter from my side and expect the same from others too.Thanks for unblocking though Holywarrior 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

D-uh. Looks like I didn't read BLOCK properly. :P *burp* <moodswing> *frowns* Where is the fourth revert, you dirty rouge admin!? </moodswing> --Nearly Headless Nick 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: [My] RfA

Sure, I'll get work work on them right away. —Xyra e l / 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They were some good questions you asked, I'm sure that if I hadn't already taken as good a look at Xyrael's contribs etc. for my nom I would have found them very useful in helping me decide how to !vote. I much prefer more customised ones like this than that standard block of additional ones that sometimes appears (though they can be useful as well on occasion). Petros471 16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Not sure what happened there - never heard of that user, his name just seemed to appear at the start of my post. The 64.12.XXX.XX AOL guy has to be a bot. --Charlesknight 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks

Thank you for your support (and the first, at that) of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke^(talk) 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wendell Evans

Wikipedia Article on Intelligent Design

Dear Josh,

I'd like your opinion of this relatively moderate articulation of intelligent design; could you point out some of its weaknesses?

"The question 'why has the trend of evolution been upwards?' is not in the least explained by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. That doctrine explains only why some kinds of organisms, having emerged, manage to survive. If survival were the only goal, however, then the very emergence of living things would be inexplicable: life itself is comparatively deficient in survival value, since the art of persistence is to be dead. What we unhesitatingly call the higher organisms, furthermore, are even less capable of survival than lower ones: otters, whales, and humans are transient species compared with viruses, bacteria, and even beetles. The problem <fnord> OK, so there's no Wikipedia article here, per se </fnord> set by the doctrine of evolution is to explain how complex organism with such deficient survival power ever evolved. One answer would be the rejection of the 'evolutionist fallacy', which assumes that fitness for sruvival is identical with the best exemplification of the Art of Life. The point is that the evloutionary process is driven by some criterion other than mere survival, this criterion being 'increase in satisfaction', that is, increase in the realization of intrinsic value. The existence of this criterion provides another reason to regard our world as created by a divine power."

The quote is from a book by David Ray Griffen, a contemporary exponent of 'process philosophy' and 'naturalistic theism'.

As for who I am, you should be able to figure it out from my user page, and from the fact that I'm far more interested <fnord> How's the renovated Trumbull? </fnord> in debating evolution than discussing Wikipolitics.

Invisible Flying Mangoes 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Replying on IFM's talk page. JoshuaZ 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar Usernames

I realize that the situation with Clyde_Wey is one of the poorer cases, however, I still find that blocking users based solemnly on username similarities is bogus. For example: why was one of the following not been blocked User:Lefty, User:Mrlefty, and User:Mr. Lefty (this just an example)? There is even User_talk:Lefty#Question. I understand putting up a message on the user talk page telling them that they will be monitored to make sure the are not imposters or have plans to vandalize pages. However, the current method (note I say method not policy) is just illogical in my opinion. --Dark Side of the Moon 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I attempt to enforce it as I can but it does need both clarification and more uniform enforcement. It is on my list of things to do if I ever have time. If you want to make it your cause, good luck. JoshuaZ 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your swift reply and for understanding, I will try and see what I can do about it --Dark Side of the Moon 01:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep me informed. JoshuaZ 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


Volume 2, Issue 35	28 August 2006	About the Signpost

A note from the editor
Interviews with Board of Trustees candidates	Wikimedia Foundation CFO resigns
Wikimania recap	Report from the Spanish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Scientific community; Creation Research Society; Denis Lamoureux; The Genesis Flood; National Religious Broadcasters; Farrell Till; TheocracyWatch; David Berlinski; John William Draper; Creation (theology); Blixa Bargeld; Hydroplates; Kurt Wise; James Kennedy (televangelist); Microevolution; Alan Hayward; Richard Kiel; Clockmaker hypothesis; No Answers in Genesis

Cleanup: Chase (comics); Methuselah; Scientific evidence
Merge: Darwin's Dangerous Idea; Omphalos (book); List of fictional religions
Add Sources: List of the most popular names in the 1910s in the United States; Protoscience; A-list
Wikify: Electional astrology; Snake venom; Firmament
Expand: Male pregnancy; Parochial school; Fusion energy gain factor

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Re: Ed's RFAr/workshop

Hi - maybe you need to edit and clean this up a bit for clarity. Link these names as usernames per the previous note.

Comment by parties:

And William Connely, Jim, Verl, Vsmith, ScienceApologist, Killerchihuaha, Slimvirgin...JoshuaZ 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks, Vsmith 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just did that a few edits ago. JoshuaZ 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that - I was looking at an out of date version, realised that but you replied befor I could retract - thanks, Vsmith 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my actions.

First of all I would like to say I appreciate you asking me why I made the edits that I did instead of deleting them earlier. Moving on I will now address each one of your qeuestions in order:

"Hi, may I ask why you've removed Professor X as an example for many powers? JoshuaZ 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"

The reason for his removal at my hands was quite simply because there are so many other characters out there with abilities similar to his it just seems terribly redundant to list him numerous times on the same list. Is it truly so terrible to give other comic characters a nod if they fill the same niche? After all, the point of this site I thought was to share knowledge on a vast scale and not to to simply point out the same old cliches and pastiches as examples. I mean no harm, I'm not trying to to step on anyone's toes or be combatative in any way, my only intent is to add a little variety to the examples and give people a broader view of superpower archtypes beyond the usual suspects.

"And why you have decided to change many other superhero examples? JoshuaZ 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"

See above.

"I've reverted most of your edits. You edits have almost uniformily replaced more well known heroes with less well known heros and/or have been replacing Marvel with DC characters. Neither an emphasis on obscure characters nor an emphasis on one company's characters is necessary. JoshuaZ 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"

I have zero bias against any one company, publisher, mythology or studio. I collect just as much DC as I do Marvel, IDW, Wildstorm, and any other variant or subsidiary of the aforementioned entities. My only consideration to whom I added was simply whether or not the person was a good example for the particular ability. And popularity had nothing to do with it at all seeing as how I added characters such as Lucas Bishop (longtime mainstay with the x-ranks), Cassandra Nova (one the X-Men's most powerful and infamous foes) and Naruto (which, is in fact immensly popular).

Look, the bottom line is, seeing as how you are an administrator, there's not really much I can do if you're not pleased with my editorial changes. I will be honest and say that I find a little baffling as to why the changes would irk you so greatly and I think it somewhat unfair seeing as how this is supposed to be the free encylopedia you can edit. Finally I feel rather disheartened by this encounter because I refrained from editing anything on this site for so long due to the fact that I had an inkling something like this would occur, when all I'm trying to do is help. Well, either way I'll still continue to enjoy the site, but I think I'll refrain from editing.

My apologies for the long post.

Baphometix 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done

Guettarda 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk

I have restored the block, even though I am not in favor of it. I have been having an email conversation with Jimbo regarding this situation, and I regard it as unambiguous that under the present circumstances he intends that this user be blocked. Dragons flight 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's authority

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but I am wondering what special authority does Jimbo have? Which policy can I read about this? HighInBC 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is the Jimbo-runs-things policy. He is therefore allowed to make whatever decisions he wants. JoshuaZ 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a link to that? HighInBC 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See Jimbo Wales JoshuaZ 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That only says he started it, if he has maintained the authority to bypass consensus(and I only have dragon flights word he has insisted because his talk page simple states an opinion), then there should be a policy that states this, I would like a link to that. HighInBC 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As to Dragon Flight's word, I'd like to point out that that should be pretty trustworthy just because who the user is and what the user has done even aside from the whole WP:AGF thing. JoshuaZ 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think I meant to call Dragon Flight's word into question, I simple did not wish to accuse Jimbo of something I only heard from another. HighInBC 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ... Jimbo As Ultimate Authority falls into the "obvious facts everyone knows" category and comes up a dozen times a week, but my quick (and possibly incomplete) skim of the actual Policies list doesn't reflect that it's actually written down as a "Policy" anywhere -- although there are newer policies (e.g. WP:OFFICE) that assume it's the case. It's also confirmed in some ArbCom decisions, which are regarded as important statements of community standards, although not "policies" per se. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is covered by WP:POLICY#How_are_policies_started.3F, third source of policy change. The page does not carry the policy header, although perhaps it should. --TeaDrinker 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POLICY#How_are_policies_started.3F, that refers to policy only, not individual decisions. If he owns it, then it is his perogative, but policy should reflect this if that is the case. HighInBC 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going back to editing articles, I am just trying to figure things out, not trying to stir things up. Thanks for the information. HighInBC 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't Jimbo personally who blocked PGUK, but Nandesuka. Jimbo's opinion is given very great weight - being the founder of this wonderful encyclopedia is certainly a good reason - but I agree that his suggestions shouldn't instantly be treated as law (I see it as more of a "first among equals" sort of thing). Dragon's flight's comment seems strange - Jimbo can't be bothered to reply to the discussion on his own talk page, but he has time for emails? Hmm! Kasreyn 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not strike me as intrinsically unreasonable to discuss potentially sensitive policy issues by email rather than on what is probably the most watched talk page on the wiki. JoshuaZ 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one's got it yet- Jimbo's ultimate authority is written down, in m:Foundation issues. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ... I should have thought to look on meta. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The conflict with Justforasecond

JoshuaZ., thanks for leaving comments on my page. What is the actual controversy about? Whis key Rebel lion 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. Whis key Rebel lion 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good faith

Joshua, thanks for this. [13] I knew, that since you approached the RFarb with a heavy heart, that if you come across any misunderstandings like this you would do the right thing.

The matters we are dealing with (boundaries of science) are complex and often subject to confusion. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

template question

Joshua, I have a question. Can you show me where the policy is on templates and their appropriate placement (concerning articles, etc) is? I can't find it. Sorry to bother you again. Thanks. Whis key Rebel lion 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the exact policies are. NPOV mentions that templates need to follow it and there are a few similar mentions scattered around but I'm not aware of a general policy. You might want to ask AzaToth who I bug with all my template related questions(although AzaToth seems not to be editing as frequently as of late). JoshuaZ 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

WikiThanks

File:AviXyrael.gif

I'd like to thank you JoshuaZ for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) —Xyra e l / 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're no fun

Bleagh Josh, you're no fun. If it wasn't for the little cabal email I don't think anyone would've noticed that for days ... it doesn't seem to be a frequently-traveled portal. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi, you participated (briefly) in the Fred Phelps article, where I removed a bunch of content which was based on an unreliable source. As I noticed you're an admin, I'd like your assistance on a similar article. I removed much the same content from the article Westboro Baptist Church, giving a detailed explanation of why on the talk page. User:CovenantD has been reverting my changes over and over, refusing to discuss it on the talk page, and ignoring completely my attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page. Reading further up his talk page, various other people have been complaining of the same thing. (In fact, amusingly enough, I just realized that you are one of the ones who mentioned this. You asked on his talk page for him to discuss with you some issues regarding some reverting/counter reverting you two did on List of comic book superpowers, and it seems he completely ignored you as well). My belief is that simply reverting an article over and over while refusing to discuss it is basically against policy and unacceptable here. If so, I'd appreciate your help on this. --Xyzzyplugh 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

evolution

thanks for catching that, you were correct. I am at the worlds slowest internet connection with a crapppy computer, I should just go off-line before I do any more unintended damage! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead redirect: Regent international university needs to be SD. Arbusto 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Admin tip

Thanks for the advice, that's a good idea. I'll go and look into that page now. —Xyrael / 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IP edits

Dear JoshuaZ:

I am not that other user, whoever that other user may be. It just so happens that some other people seem to agree with me. I do agree that matters would be much simpler if everybody stuck to one clearly identifiable username. It was not my intention to suggest that a string of digits is always an improper appellation. Bellbird 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Gaming the system"

I have responded to your statement on the 3rr page. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

don't quite understand

don't quite understand your message on my talk. i'd be happy to talk about it on the jfj page tho. i'd also be *very* appreciative if you at least make a minor denouncement of personal attacks like "crusading liar" on that talk page (but no biggie if you choose not to)

-Justforasecond 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens said it (its still on talk). I won't ask you to say anything about him specifically but I think it would help tone down his rhetoric if someone that agreed with him content-wise reminded everyone to refrain from personal attacks.

I don't think the info I removed belongs there -- why does it matter if Jews for Jesus is incompatible with modern Judaism? We don't have a section in Protestant titled "incompatibility with Catholocism" or on "Christianity" saying "incompatibility with paganism", etc.. Let's just put this on the JFJ page cause its relevant there -- other editors may be interested.

Justforasecond 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right but protestantism doesn't claim you can be a catholic and protestant at the same time. J4J does, hence arguments that they are not compatible are highly relevant. JoshuaZ 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss on the talk page if you like Justforasecond 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring the matter up on the talk page. JoshuaZ 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for talking to humus.

Justforasecond 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

J4J and the template

Since you don't seem to be involved in the matter prior, you may be interested in knowing that the template is in fact used on many articles not just those in the "series" and the word series in the template in fact links to the general Christianity category. JoshuaZ 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Do you have an example? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Muriel programming language

Hmmmm. Feel free to do what you feel is most proper. I'm having a blast right now carrying out the decision for this whole thing. Yank sox 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

When deleting pages from this AfD, in the summary, please show the link to: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Esoteric_programming_languages because the only other way to find the AfD is to search through the "what links here" page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You gotta see this

Try this on for size.[14] Arbusto 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I: Images

Could I direct you to masturbation where there was a recently uploaded Image of a male masturbating too. Could you check this out? — The Future 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently, it was (just? now) moved to commons. I would still like for you to review this upload that went to commons, if you could. — The Future 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have admin privileges on commons. Besides, I think there are poeple looking into it there. JoshuaZ 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as long as there are people looking into it, thats fine with me :) Cheers! — The Future 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus reached in Talk:Masturbation through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete what has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible in Talk:Masturbation and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" there at Talk:Masturbation#The_New_Image has become utterly pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on the Masturbation page. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.

CovenantD

User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page.

I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. --The Judge 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance

This brings me here. Can I help? WAS 4.250 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That user put the message on a large number of pages. I'm not entirely sure why. It is related to a photo I temporarily deleted per consensus on ANI. Why the user commented to you I don't know. JoshuaZ 04:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. It sounds to me like I can help most by staying out of it! WAS 4.250 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer

I answered your question on my page. --evrik 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


Volume 2, Issue 36	5 September 2006	About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped	Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Wikipedia	The English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections	Wikipedia in the news
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Would you mind running a check on who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? Of course, I am a little miffed that you assumed I was doing as much; I am not. Other people on both sides of the discussion may be using sockpuppets, however - that is, at least, my (unprovable - by me!) impression. Since you are an admin, I thought you might be able to check. Also - if you do ascertain that I do not have sockpuppets, would you mind withdrawing your statement in the Village Pump? Bellbird 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up. I will let the requester of the Advocate Case make the call to reopen it since the case was about the Legal threats. Thanks Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re #RFA

Hi JoshuaZ,

I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them...

By all means – thanks for your interest – but re your first question ("Could you expand on your response to question 2 above?"), rather than second-guessing what you might like to learn, perhaps you might give me some pointers...? I'll then happily launch into trying to address all your questions. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

...As you probably already know, I've now responded to your questions. Yours, David 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

...Thanks for your support!

...Needs to tell when a question is meant as a joke(that is, my question 4)

Sorry to miss; having not seen WP:100 before, I wondered whether it did have any significance beyond general endorsement. So – I fell for it! Best wishes, David 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

Having had some pepole talk to me ive decided i will be throwing my hat into the adminship ring again at some point in the near future especially as the real life issues that have kept me from wikipedia recently have gone and id be honured for you to be the person to nominate me :D Benon 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks that was a pleasant surprise. You are the first admin to ever unblock me after they blocked me. Either you are a super nice guy, or my grovling and pleading has gotten signifigantly better from all of the practice from the other boots. :)

I am sorry for breaking WP:NPA and WP:Civil, I strongly agree with those pages. In fact I apologized to User:CJK and have repeatedly stated that I should have been blocked, my comments at that time were way over the top.

I just get frustrated at wikiusers using wikipolicy to push their own POV. No one admits it, but almost everyone does it in some form or another. No one will admit that they have no "POV". I have repeatedly clashed with admins in editing articles who know wikipolicy and use wikipolicy to push their POV. In fact, I am in a heated argument with someone like this right now.

My biggest weakness is I speak my mind. You can't do that on wikipedia: you have to learn how to speak your mind diplomatically. I have learned that from veteran editors and admins. If wikieditors would have cracked down on my comments last year, I would no longer be editing wikipedia, I would be booted indefinatly. My comments have mellowed incredibly since then.

I also see incredible hyprocicy in the way certain editors enforce wikipedia policy (not you--just some unnamed editors). They unblock each other. That in no way excuses my words today.

It appears like WP:NPA and WP:Civil are your pet peeves. Mine is WP:AWW

Maybe you can start monitoring Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, we all have been guilty of violating WP:NPA and WP:Civil, especially myself :(. We already have a mediator, but more opinions are welcome and needed. I would total respect and abide by a WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot if you started to monitor this page. (not that I don't respect the WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot today).

Anyway, thanks for unblocking me. I am rambling, again, I told you that I speak my mind.Travb (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know if I am stepping over the line

Please let me know if I am stepping over the line at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine I am being very careful not to even "skirt" WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I will stop editing this page if necessary, or change any edits I make. Travb (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rory block

Hey Joshua, sorry that went to AN/I. I wasn't in on the IRC chat, I just saw the tail end which is why I hit Rory's shutoff button. I got a message about the AN/I, I'll respond there. I was trying to end the stir, not whip it up. Teke^(talk) 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I did not make the block as a joke. Rory has not been blocked in the length of time that I have been on IRC. I did not block the IP, just the username and I did so as a preventative measure. I didn't think it was funny. Teke^(talk) 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Username Block

I blocked the user. I can definitely see the name being offensive to some people, and the user wasn't going anywhere good. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking into the Rory096 situation I posted about on WP:AN/I. After reading all the comments there and on user talk pages, I think I have pieced together what happened. It looked all very strange to me, which is why I posted what I did. -- Gogo Dodo 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Atheists

I'll grant an administrator some leeway- but you will note that I placed a NPOV tag on the page, gave my reasons for it, and solicited differing opinions before making the edits. You haven't responded to the questions raised on the Talk page, which would be appropriate. Gabrielthursday 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a newbie, and trying not to act precipitously. Sleep well. Gabrielthursday 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2004 AfD needs closing

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 needs to be closed. Arbusto 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

verifiability

hey joshua

he is actually claiming "all" jewish groups are opposed to j4j, not all major denomniations.

i'm sure you can see the problem with this -- how can you know what "all" x are opposed to, without knowing exactly who x are?

Justforasecond 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops

re User talk:12.153.197.126, sorry to confuse you - my fault. I thought I had edited the wrong page, but I hadn't, and then I did, and then you arrived before I could fix it! my bad. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Trissanju

Hi, you closed the delete debate on the Trissanju articles, however only one of the pages has this far been deleted. Was this an oversight or intentional? Shiroi Hane 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else caught them while I was typing. Shiroi Hane 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, saved me the time. I was going to go back and delete the others two but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. JoshuaZ 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow you're a softie...

When you're leaving nice talk page messages I hit the block button. You think that blanking IP was block-ready yet... they fit bot block criteria -- Tawker 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user had only blanked twice when I wrote my comment and given the user's first edit I thought that they might have an issue with the article. Given how many times they then proceeded to blank in a very short time I think your decision was correct. And yes, I guess I am a softie JoshuaZ 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated

As much as I would have resented doing this back in August, I have come here to offer my appreciation for your request for comment regarding my situation last month. Since that time, I have taken a semi–permanent wikibreak and have not made any edits since 22 August before today. I have returned only temporarily for a "birthday treat" (it is my 18th) and wanted to offer my thanks for your "waking me up" to being a better contributor by enlisting the RfC. If I ever do again return on a more permanent basis, I can assure you that my edits will be tenfold more productive. I also appreciate your attempts to delist my RfC after my contributions improved. I have addressed my situation with Wikipedia at my talk page, and wish you a productive editing future. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` ^[discl.] 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Evangelical Seminary needs semi-protection

Its been gettin repeatedly hit over the last few days by a range of IPs. Arbusto 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ousmane Zongo

Thanks for closing that; it was turning into a real nightmare. Do you think somebody could have a look at the actions of some of the socks? It was a thoroughly disgusting discussion. -No more bongos 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't much point to bother looking at the socks. Most of them looked like meatpuppets so checkuser won't help much and I doubt any of them will edit much again. If a similar problem occurs again with the same socks then I'll look into it in detail. JoshuaZ 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one was confirmed by checkuser...and the same one has been disrupting NYPD-related articles and making borderline personal attacks relating to other articles. Of course, it's up to you whether to take action but I found the conduct unacceptable. No more bongos 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it. JoshuaZ 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for helping. For info, here's the checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Spring3100, though i imagine you may have found it yourself already... :) No more bongos 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Balfouria

Thanks for handling this really frustrating Balfouria situation. I have never seen someone so obsessed with vandalizing one page that he is willing to hold ransom so many others. It is through the hard work of editors like yourself that Wikipedia miraculously keeps vandalism to a minimum. nadav 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately he seems to be all done for the day and right after I worked out how (I think) to ask him in hebrew why he doesn't have anything else to do.

Is this "האימ אתה לא יכול לעשות משהו די טוב" close to correct? JoshuaZ 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe not bad at all! I would write "האם אין לך משהו טוב יותר לעשות?" which is a bit better. The whole thing is pretty sad: the guy says he is a resident of Balfouria, but instead of working on making a nice article about the place, he destroys any attempt to do so. I hope he's done after today. I guess they don't give him much work at the Technion. nadav 22:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the article. Yeah, I thought most of the edits werent really for the best. nadav 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for reverting. I am not sure what I did to deserve this... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary on 3RRV

Joshua, and thanks for the feedback regarding the 3RR page, and sorry if I got a bit anxious. Point taken on the weasel words. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

darn template code, always trying to include itself

No worries. :) Thank you for providing an analysis of the claimed wheel war. Do you think you'll be attending the MfD? I never know what to wear to these things... -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Faith healing

I reverted your change to faith healing because I'm not sure that your wording was in a NPOV. If you disagree, mind discussing on the Talk:Faith healing page? No offense intended, just trying to keep a touchy subject at a somewhat neutral stance.

Unrelated, your talk page needs an archive :)

-- BillWeiss | Talk 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I need to archive. I'll do it soon. I'm putting off archiving because I'm trying to decide if I should switch to User:Durin's format. Anyways, I need sleep now. I'll discuss the article on the talk page in the morning. JoshuaZ 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I said this in Talk:Faith healing but wanted to make sure you saw it. My revert of your edit to Faith healing was based on an incorrect reading of the diff. My apologies. -- BillWeiss | Talk 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. JoshuaZ 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)