User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Admin request

Since you're out and about with an admin bit, think you could take care of this request [1]? Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama article

First of all, thanks for all the help on getting consensus on Barack Obama, but it appears that there is still a vocal hold out on your compromise wording for the Wright controversy.[2] The rest of the editors on the article seem to at least be accepting of your modified version of Scjessey's proposal and comments so far seem to be against the standout's proposal. Should we restart the whole consensus gathering process on the Wright issue, or is there a point where a vocal standout can be left behind? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

before you say it....

...I know, we shouldn't bite. But sometimes enough is enough. Tvoz |talk 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for a glass of wine. Or two. Tvoz |talk 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Could you take a look at the new section at the talk page? Thanks, Grsz 11 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I got out of hand, but his accusations of my bias have no grounds. My edits on the article space before the protection were rooted in policy that I (attempted) to point out to whoever was crying bias at the time. Grsz 11 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Grsz. I just thought it was best to remove that whole strand of conversation — no good was going to come of it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All this is just incredibly frustrating. A few days ago I wanted to work towards RFA, now I'm afraid this whole mess will come back and stop all that. It's just really disappointing that my attempts at protecting the integrity of the project as a whole have been construed with claims of a POV bias. I'm done for the night, maybe for awhile. Thanks for the help. Grsz 11 06:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

122.164.124.108's behavior seems oddly familiar to me. Grsz11 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC) He keeps saying he's a User:KVS, but there is no such person. His behavior quickly evolved from being "a neutral, and an observer of American politics" from India, to attacking others on POV claims. Grsz11 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that this "KVS" character is using two IP addresses in any future study (121.246.24.167) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have the IP check for being an open proxy.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he appears to have said his piece and moved on. If he comes back and is disruptive, I'll submit the IP at the WikiProject on open proxies to see what they think. (I don't know enough about proxies to determine that myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi- User:KVSTamilNadu ( I found this stalking tvoz's history in case you're wondering ) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you found my history as fascinating as I do, 72.... be my guest, peruse away. It's what keeps me up at night :) On the subject, though, it's obvious that he has figured out a way to get around proxies - now appearing to be from Singapore, India and Korea - I can't explain it, but I know a duck when I see one. Especially this duck. Quack. Tvoz |talk 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the pattern of behavior and style of comment is extraordinarily duck-like. However, a proxy check for the Korean IP didn't produce any evidence. I think it's highly likely that "KVS" and the Korean IP are the same individual, but I don't have a clue about how he's doing it. Nor am I sure what can be done about it, except noting the suspicious similarities on the talk page and taking the source of any comments into account. (I doubt that blocking these IPs would do much good, because he's clearly got access to multiple IPs and would probably just pop up again claiming to be from Liechtenstein or Brazil or somewhere.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

I did comment on content

...and I said your comments had a really, really stupid content! I think that you should use your energies - which I'm sure are very formidable when you put them to practical use - elsewhere. Instead of trying to bring the Obama page down, why do you not try to bring the McCain page up? Wikidea 11:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take it back, I thought you were being serious. Far too hasty reading. I should stay away from these pages for precisely that reason. Wikidea 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GSRZ11

An editor with whom you seem to be developing a relationship is removing my dispute tag on the Trinity page. I still dispute it, and editors have been trying to get around the consensus on the Wright page by linking to the Trinity page where wild claims of quoting Peck remain.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not say he quoted Peck, it says he claimed to quote Peck. And it's CarlosRodriguez, the edit warring-POV user who keeps adding the link. Grsz11 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: He never, ever claims to quote Peck. That is not a claim of a quote. For an agnostic, you seem to be pretty obsessed with a church and its former pastor. Please check the above users talk page history and see who has been warned.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My concerns have been resolved. Sorry to bother you and junk up your talk page--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

my rationale for the Wright/marine thing

as you have noticed, all the proposed wright additions are increased negative text. Even though guilt by association is not allowed, we are doing it anyways, as I think we should for the sake of accuracy. However if we are going to allow an exception of guilt by association, it is doubly imperative that WP portray even a moderately accurate conception of "the associate". Furthermore, considering the fundamental question in this affair has been Wright's patriotism, I think information which comes close to proving it definitively, should not be excluded simply on the basis of unrelated-ness, when some would argue the entire Wright section is getting unrelated to Obamas bio. We are making a compromise with certain editors to allow moderate length increases (no matter their long term notability) in return for possibly preventing World Edit War I. All I hope is that we could also make a far smaller compromise to provide some degree of equal weight to the section, even if it is not a "gold standard" phrase. We do need to provide equal weight to Wright regardless of what we do, make sure its clear he is not a monster like some editors think, and I think it this is a great way of providing NPOV to his monstrous comments.

Right now the entire section is "he said..." and nothing about "he IS..." so again trying to swing that balance a bit. I know this is a bit more horse-trading than you would like to see on the page, but alack until 2009 as we all know. Please realize that while horse trading may be unseemly, sometimes a man needs to trade his horse, so he can get a better horse, if you follow. Surely working around these new jokers, to make a better page for the real future that exists beyond Denver this August, has some appeal to you.

PS- I was successful making this addition on the BO 2008 page, several weeks ago. Another argument could be, that if we are expanding the Wright section in a NPOV fashion, we should be using the daughter articles as much as possible. And several of the related daughter articles on this topic currently mention Wright's military service. So if you accept the goal of a bit of pro-Wright text for neutrality's sake, maybe the pro- Wright info that already appears on several pages is a good candidate for that.

cheers 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussed and apparently resolved, at least for the moment, at Talk:Barack Obama#Wright biographical detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama article

Hold off for a second on the Obama article. I've tried fixing all the The's on about 3 seperate occasions, only to realize you're editing in between and I have to go back and fix them all again. --Ubiq (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Barack Obama, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I time?

Just figured I'd pop over and ask for your opinion on whether or not it is time to send the edit war on Barack Obama to AN/I for a neutral admin to do some blocking. I'm not going to pick a side here, but it is readily apparent on the talk page that none of the sides are particularly willing to voluntarily stop their edit warring long enough to actually try to reach a compromise without some preventative measures being taken. Heck, I'm not even sure that the sides are willing to find a compromise that would end the edit war. We've gone through two cycles of full edit protection and several RFCs that have all failed to resolve the issue. In looking at the edit history, ever since the last edit protection was lifted Andyvphil and Kossack4truth have been re-adding their preferred text once or twice a day (with little to no modification) and within minutes Grz11, Scjessey, Johnpsuedo, or Ubiq come along and revert it citing various BLP type concerns. Seriously, what's the point of adding it if you know it's going to be reverted except to continue the edit war... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you can get someone from medcab to actually take the case and all the participants to stop with the edit warring long enough to go into mediation I'm all for it. For some reason I'm a bit pessimistic about the sides actually coming to the table in a civil and calm manner, both of which get cases kicked out of medcab and medcom immediately. At least without someone giving them a quick slap prior to it. Heh. Call me heavy handed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you guys on this. And I agree we'll need groundrules or it will just be another venue for spleen-venting. And I hope it's not going to require volumes of diffs and justifications against trolls or others more interested in pushing their POV than article improvement - that's just enervating and more of the same and I'm not interested in being pulled through the mill on this. Tvoz |talk 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

editing tip of the day

If you temporarily add <references /> to the bottom of the section edit screen and then do preview, you can check that the reference format came in right. BUT, remember to remove it before you save! I do it all the time - it's not the most elegant, but it works. By the way - I was adding "The"s today too! Tvoz |talk 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha - yup, I've done that too. Tvoz |talk 04:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy article

Hey Josiah, I am writing to get your opinion on the Wright article. As an admin, you are very familiar with the Wiki policies, and as a dedicated, NPOV editor I know the policies too. And by creating the Wright controversy article, I have combined material from two places into one to provide readers eaasier access to this event. How should I proceed? I cannot remove the delete tag again, because that would be a violation of 3RR. But I have stated why the article is important on the talk page. Any thoughts? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and I agree with you (although I think you phrased the argument much better on the talk page). But what about the "Effects on Barack Obama" section? BeachDrifter removed it without explanation. Happyme22 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, I think it should be restored, but I'd have to check the details. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

why not rename and re work ALL the existing text at A More perfect union then create a whole new page? The two are (wright and the speech) only distinct if we make them distinct, an opinion I am not sure the media analysis has shared. anyways, my main objection revolves around the concept of a NEW page when no one is arguing against simply expanding the speech page in the first place...72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone did suggest expanding A More Perfect Union to cover all the ground mentioned in Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy I'd object. Things like the religious scholars who traced the roots of Wright's rhetoric to the prophetic tradition in the black church, or Lawrence Korb defending Wright's patriotism because of his military service, aren't directly relevant to the speech — but they are relevant to the controversy. I'm surprised you can't see the distinction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They are two completely different events, that's why. And 72, don't tag articles as being "unencyclopedic" without a rationale. It cannot be merged into A More Perfect Union because the two are distincly separate. Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

added merge tags to both pages as an intermediary step before AfD.

also the difference I am not seeing, is why we can't retitle the speech into Wright controversy or race controversy or religious controversy, etc. Just because the speech page is currently titled and structured as such, does not mean it has to stay that way, when as everyone admits, with all the overlap, it would be well positioned to receive orphan text from this nascent page... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the speech has notability even outside of its context in the campaign, whereas the controversy is solely a function of the campaign. The speech "A More Perfect Union" is about broader themes than Barack Obama's relationship to Jeremiah Wright, and our article discusses those themes. If the article were retitled to focus on the controversy, that material wouldn't be relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you sell yourself a little short there. I have no doubt an effective merge can be achieved. I will whisper something to you: I am one of those uncouth folk who think a "barack obama and race" type page is not out of the question, and such a page could easily encompass both the wright affair and the speech. (not to mention the undue weight problems having wright by itself brings up, stuff I haven't mentioned yet) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a "barack obama and race" page is not out of the question, but that is beside the point. The speech is clearly notable in and of itself and thus warrants its own article (if anything it can be expanded, so subsuming it under a larger topic would be damn near impossible). Given that the speech was already put up for AfD (twice) and easily survived, I don't think changing the title and decreasing our depth of coverage (which would be necessary) will be acceptable to folks working on the page. So I don't think your proposal is going to go anywhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm... I can see the potential value in a Barack Obama and race article myself (although it would be hell to construct neutrally), but I don't see that as excluding specific articles on the speech and the wright affair. As a possible comparison, note that we have separate articles on John Kerry's military service, John Kerry military service controversy, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Swift Boat challenge and swiftboating. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(out) I agree we need a specific article on the speech and the wright affair, I just don't think we need two, or two and a half. Whatever we call it, however we structure it, existing meta-formatting can handle it, especially when the the title is as envelope-pushing as possible. That is why I suggest a race-type page where ALL this stuff can go.

and regarding the numerous John kerry pages- I wonder how many of those pages existed during the PRIMARY campaign... yes Wright may be a factor in the general election, but I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves. At this point a separate page for the controversy is Undue Weight. not forever but for now. so I don't care where the merge goes, but I really doubt this page, especially with such a crap title, should keep existing long term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your argument, but since the campaign page is so long and the speech noteworthy in and of itself, I don't see a problem with keeping all three separate. Let's wait a bit and see what other people think — if you still feel strongly about it, we can take it to AfD (where merge is often a popular option). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

yes sorry you got so involved- I am waiting to see what others think as well. will pull the merge tag from speech page...72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK — it's not like I'm sleeping these days anyway. :\ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS If you want to delete the frederick douglass reference, then be bold... I expected it to get deleted by now anyways, (maybe not by you...). Please just remember that I am trying to balance the compromise we are talking about. adding more negative wright text with no equivalent positive is that n compromise at all. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Josiah. Thank you so much for your help with the Wright controversy page. You hinted at the artcile's talk page that you don't support a merge; I was wondring if you could officially register that by restating it in bold text. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your proposed version. I like it very much - great job! Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hap! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rezko's charges

Re: [3]

Heh. Don't worry about missing it. I did some work on Tony Rezko's article and because of it I spent way too much time reading the charges against him and articles about those charges. I doubt anyone that is not as familiar with the charges as I am would have noticed the distinction really, but it is an important one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that I'd read enough coverage of the charges that I should have noticed that. Anyway, that's the whole point of the lots-of-eyeballs wiki advantage, isn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Or a disadvantage, depending on how you look at it.. I can think of a couple of eyes I could do without on the Obama article. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Wright

Awesome job, dude. I await comments from the dynamic duo to see what they think. Apologies for being a bit emotional earlier (I took a 6-hour break). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Taking a break was a good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different page

Another merger proposal is being discussed on the Wright controversy talk page, and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Wakefield Smith

Nice work, it looks like a good article. However I saw your comment over at T:TDYK saying that you've used "Wakefield" in the title to distinguish from other Daniel Smiths. If he's not commonly referred to with his middle name, might Daniel Smith (photojournalist) be more appropriate as a title considering WP:DAB#Biographies? Cheers —97198 talk 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered doing that — but the problem is that he's noted not just for his work as a photojournalist, but also for his work as a musician and for the radio drama recreations. I thought that using (photojournalist) as a disambiguator might not acknowledge the diversity of his work enough. But I'm willing to go with what other folks think on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Know if there's any guidance from MoS naming conventions or WP:DAB on the matter, if there's no primary disambiguator? —97198 talk 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any. Incidentally, Smith does use his middle initial (his website is at danielwsmith.com), but Daniel W. Smith is ambiguous with Daniel Wayne Smith (who didn't always use his middle name either, it seems). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

%

Hi, thanks for your message. WP:MOSNUM#Percentages does not state a preference on per cent style; I personally prefer % as it makes articles slightly more concise and quicker to read. Also, in a way more significantly, those using the script would have to undo all the 'percent' to '%' changes the script was suggesting so I'd be very grateful if we went with %. what do you think? cheers Tom (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger that

I see your point about WP:NN (although not until I used it in another edit summary, unfortunately). I did not realize it didn't apply to parts of articles. That being said, my reason for cutting out certain text recently was a lack of notability, which also implies undue weight. For example, the article went into detail about parts of Obama's career as a lawyer that weren't at all notable (ie. run-of-the-mill "lawyering", as I like to call it). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note of thanks

Hi, Josiah.... I just wanted to thank you for your level-headed work on the various Obama-related articles. There's been a lot of unsurprising POV-pushing in both directions on them, and through it all, you've approached the discussions with a focus on fitting the content into the bounds of Wikipedia policy. I've found myself agreeing with your assessments time and again, and while I know I'm not the arbiter of what's right and wrong around here, it's still gotta count for something!  :) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dachannien. I do appreciate it — it's not always easy to navigate these minefields. But I've managed not to get blown up yet, so I guess I'm doing OK. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What violation?

I don't believe I've violated 3RR. Please identify the edits you counted as reverts. Andyvphil (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the system as Andy, but it is my understanding that "editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" covers his belief that he didn't do anything wrong. I support your decision to block us both and I will do my very best to keep my cool in future. I must say that I am disappointed that Andy's clear, agenda-driven editing isn't drawing more attention from other champions of the neutral point-of-view. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented about this issue at Talk:Barack Obama#Stupid edit war. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Hey, I carefully stopped at two. The last one was cleaning a redirect that had been lazily undone. I hope you don't mind my removing the template from my talk page. Grsz^talk 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link twice, meaning I only reverted once, if I'm interpreting correctly. Maybe you thought this was a revert of the same content? I'd like to know what you thought so I can avoid the situation. Ewness however, did revert twice. Grsz^talk 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was counting all the reverts, not just the reverts of the link to Black sermonic tradition. Specifically: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Remember that WP:3RR says, "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." Now, this and this are arguably noncontroversial, but it's noteworthy that the other three were all reversion of additions by Ewness. When you're repeatedly reverting the same editor who's making non-vandalistic edits, that's an edit war. I'm sorry if the template upset you — that wasn't my intent. I just wanted to give you a friendly reminder. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I understand what you mean. The last was my reverting CyberAnth, who was lazy and reverted without looking at what he was doing. Ewness has issues with POV, this is one of them, and it's hard to get it through to him. Grsz^talk 06:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand — but it's good to remember that you don't have to stand alone. Sometimes it's more productive to let a bad edit stand and engage in discussion than to revert it on sight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Wakefield Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Bobet 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Daniel Wakefield Smith, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Journalism. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

-- Nice work! Cirt (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Croquet

I think the subtitle might be a good enough hint. I think, however, that I knew more people who knew you though. Excuse me if I give you a hard time, I just know that our tradition was founded on rigorous questioning and back and forth over points of detail and philosophical questions. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, indeed. But I am more of a Hobbesgoblin myself (if there could be such a thing!). But yes, you can see the desire for the abstract discussion without feeling a personal regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent

Just a quick note to say that this, to me, displays that you have a refreshing intelligence. Email me sometime. Ewenss (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)