User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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 my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

This archive covers discussion from May and June of 2006.

Daffy

Oh, sure - I noticed that after the last reversion, which is (a) why I stopped and (b) why I didn't call him on 3RR. Not a problem. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie looking for advice

Hey, I want to add a photo to a Wikipedia article that already exists. How do I do it, and what are the rules I should follow? Wandering Star 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Josiah! The picture I want to add is originally from a newspaper article, and doesn't have a byline attatched to it or anything indicating that it has a copyright. Is that safe to use, or am I better off using a different one? Wandering Star 12:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's an odd quirky thing about the automatic signature. I have been using the four tildes each time to sign my name. For some reason I don't understand, the signature and timestamp appear-but not as a hotlink to my page. It just shows up as plain old typeface. Beats me as to why. Wandering Star 20:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the nickname box reads "Wandering Star" and the raw signature box was checked. I just unchecked it to see if that makes any kind of difference. Wandering Star 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

168.169.105.252 abuse

Wait a minute.... user was warned today, has history of warnings and blocks. Let me tell you how futile it feels to report abuse and see no action. OnPatrol 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=52528325&oldid=52528076

Comment

No, the anon's making a polemic and the matter is being discussed further up the page. Furthermore, you removed several other users' comments when you reverted. Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

No particular reason for posting, but I wanted to express my appreciation of the cool head you've displayed over the latest, well, debacle. I'm neither here nor there on userboxes, but I think your comment on "pushing somebody into the mud, and then condemning them for being dirty" was absolutely spot on. I'm just saddened that there are admins messing around, when there are backlogs in Category:Administrative backlog. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes indeed! All the best, MartinRe 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for working hard to stop abuses and damiging behavior to wikipedia constantly!  Heltec  talk  21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation of my username

Please take a look at the odd behavior of user Lostfan815 who apparently has impersonated me as "User:LeFIyman": [1]

This user (I assume) registered my name on May 9, and copied the content of my user page. I have since removed the duplicated content and placed a sockpuppet notice on the userpage.

I suspect that 203.129.45.193 and/or 202.55.159.214 may also be sockpuppet IPs for this account.

Obviously, such a fraud would be pretty easy to check out, but what is the appropriate remedy? Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames says, "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that were perceived as impersonation attempts on present users".

Likewise, Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry says, "In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian may be blocked permanently."

What's your take on this? Thanks, -LeflymanTalk 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing that. So far (as I can tell) that user hasn't tried any other tricks. I think the simplest course is to block the fake name "User:LeFIyman" (that's an "i" instead of an "L") -- and keep an eye on the other account(s) for unusual activity. —LeflymanTalk 06:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian and WP:POINT

Moved from User talk:Gmaxwell.

Against my better judgement, I'd like to respond to the comments you made at WP:DRV/U#Template:User Christian. Although you maintain a civil tone throughout, your remarks here seem to me to do the exact opposite of what you were intending: instead of showing that your actions on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian were not a violation of WP:POINT, they demonstrate the point you were trying to make and in so doing show that you were violating WP:POINT.

I don't want to assume bad faith of you, but I honestly can't see the edits you and Cyde made as anything other than a humorous attempt to show by extreme example the problems with having userboxes in template space — sort of a Wikipedian version of "A Modest Proposal". You chose a widely used userbox and turned it into a footnoted essay with the stated purpose of making it NPOV. You are clearly an intelligent individual. I cannot conceive that when you made this series of changes, you were unaware that many users are sensitive to changes in userbox templates. Therefore, I must conclude that you either did not care what users who had this template on their userpages thought (a possibly defensible position, albeit a slightly callous one) or you deliberately wanted to provoke them (an undefensible position). Some of your comments on Template talk:User Christian seem to support the former; the fact that you began this project of transforming userboxes with User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian to me suggests the latter, since it is beyond cliché that religion is a topic about which people have strong opinions (consider the old saw about not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table). Again, since you are not an idiot I must conclude that your reasons for choosing this template were satirical.

I don't doubt that you are motivated, at least in part, by a genuine concern for NPOV and for the good of the encyclopedia. However, I cannot conceive of a process that resulted in this as having an intention that was anything but satirical. I haven't noticed you disagreeing with Tony Sidaway's characterization of your edits as a "joke". It was a joke, and I just wish you'd have the decency to admit it instead of continuing this charade.

Cyde has apologized for the disruption he caused, and has implicitly admitted that on his part, at least, the entire affair was an attempt to cause the userbox to be moved out of template space — a goal I have no problem with, by the way. (I don't really care whether these userboxes remain in template space or not — I got rid of my opinion userboxes quite some time ago, and think that a widespread subst'ing campaign would probably be the best option for the userbox debate at this point.) I just think that the way you tried to make the point about userboxes was needlessly disruptive, and a classic example of WP:POINT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Cyde. I can not speak for his actions. You continue to confuse my actions with his, and assign intentions to me that I simply do not have. I spent a considerable amount of time explaining my position to you, and you've failed to accept that I was honestly attempting an improvement from an NPOV perspective and was more than willing to compromise, but I was unable because people responded with incivility, intolerance, and with incorrect accusations.
After the time I spent explaining to what I did (which does not include adding the silly rotating cross which you're effectively accusing me of above)[2][3][4] I am shocked and upset that you continue to accuse me of participating in some joke with your reference to Tony's edit summary, which I never actually read and which I wouldn't have had any cause to respond to Tony on-wiki about because I usually talk to Tony off-wiki. I feel I'm owed an apology from you for that accusation.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, I've already explained myself in detail as cited above. I don't understand why you persist in accusing me of violating WP:POINT. I thought my proposed edit was a good change, and while I wasn't surprised to see it mindlessly reverted (it's a userbox people will do that), I did honestly expect there would be discussion and compromise and that we'd end up with something better that everyone could agree on. I didn't expect harassing emails, your complete unwillingness to simply accept my explanation, or this novella you've posted to this talk page. I'm sorry for you that it's so hard for you understand that my actions were guileless.
I am going to remove any further posts on my talk page regarding this matter. I have other projects to work on, and these continued messages are upsetting me and disrupting me.--Gmaxwell 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a mixed message: asking for an apology, and saying that you'll remove any further posts on the subject. Ah, well. I can't see why I should be expected to know that you talk to Tony Sidaway off-wiki, but if you're just going to persist in this obstinacy there's no point in my continuing to try to discuss it with you. The point of the "novella" above was to explain why I interpreted your actions as a WP:POINT violation — an effort to engage you in honest dialogue. That's what I was trying to accomplish. However, it seems you're not interested — you seem to be either trying to maintain plausible deniability or you are less intelligent than you appear.
For the record, I haven't sent you any emails (harassing or otherwise), and I don't appreciate you associating me with anyone who might have done so. I'm not sure whether I should just let this go or whether to file an RfC about your conduct in this matter — I'll try to see what the general feeling of others is. I just wanted to help you recognize that this was an unacceptable way of going about things, and hoped for an apology. It seems I've failed in both endeavors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously explained myself to you, in detail, already addressing every point you made with the exception of your allegation related of my failure to respond to some edit summary of Tony's. I did not expect you to know about my off-wiki conversations, rather I would expect you not to make ridiculous allegations. As such it appears to me that your continued contact on this matter is just harassment. If your intention is not to harass me then I suggest you simply stop contacting me unless you see me do something else you find objectionable. I have moved this discussion to your talk page because I'm tired of looking at it. Feel free to nuke it when you're tired of looking at it. --Gmaxwell 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Cyde has apologized for the disruption he caused". Could you provide a link? Or was it off-Wikipedia? I ask you because I've already been accused of WP:CIVIL because I'm "bringing up this incidenct at every possible opportunity, on every page, in every context". If I were doing that, it's only because I've never seen any apology by Cyde. Maybe seeing it would give me the badly needed closure. Friendly Neighbour 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He provided a link, I'll quote Cyde: "Alright, I'll admit it, maybe things got out of hand, and I apologize if I caused any disruption.". Somehow Josiah thinks that I owe some kind of apology because cyde made that statement, although I'm confused by that claim... I've only said a half dozen times that I didn't intend to cause a disruption. I confined my actions to the template and the talk. I didn't spread the argument to the 4+ pages it's raging on, I left people on the list and on AN/I alone even when they were getting their facts wrong. When the discussion moved to the deletion page, I stopped discussing on the talk. After kicking off this, I did my best to contain the disruption. Am I going to apologize for the disruption that did result? Why should I? I was harmed by it a much as anyone else.--Gmaxwell 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't owe an apology because Cyde admitted his role. You owe an apology because, in tandem with Cyde, you turned a one-sentence box transcluded onto hundreds of user pages into a page-long essay. I'm repeating myself, but I just don't see how an intelligent person could fail to see that this would be disruptive.
Yes, you were harmed by the disruption you caused. That's going to happen when you start pouring boiling oil on people: you might splash some of it on yourself as well, and get burned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template User Christian

I have no diff to give you. I don't read the mailing list, but was told that everyone had apologized there. Really, my statement was more a matter of WP:AGF than anything -- if Gmaxwell still hasn't seen the error in that conduct, that would be... less than wise. Absent evidence to contrary, I certainly hope everyone regrets it, as it was a gravely foolish edit war. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost page

Hi, Jachin. Although personally I agree that Lost ought to direct people to the television series, a previous proposal to do what you did earlier tonight was unable to reach a consensus. Since we have to respect consensus, I've reverted your changes to Lost, Lost (disambiguation) and Lost (TV series). I hope you understand that it's not personal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting Wikipedia:Be bold into action. The lack of consensus with that article seems to be a common theme, every consensus attempted has no objective outcome; it appears that the Lost editors cannot agree on anything at all for that matter. Tis a shame it's been reverted already, I had a feeling it would carry in situ with no opposition indefinately. Oh well. Jachin 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page.)[reply]
Yeah, it does seem that there's not much agreement on Lost articles. As for the disambiguation page, there was an anonymous editor who kept making that change repeatedly a few months back, which triggered the RfM; I think we should wait a bit longer before trying again (there was a bit of "voting fatigue" last time round). Thanks for being understanding, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!

Hey, Rowe. I have this Animated Series Batman project, I started about the Batman bio withing the DC Animated Universe after noticing such information isn't available on wikipedia Batman Articles, but other heros, like John Stewart, Hawkgirl or even villains like Clock King or Darkseid have a second bio with DCAU history.

The artcle is right now a draft with raw info to shape, take of, expand, correct, focus more, whateva'. I don't know if you think the project is a good idea, but I do know that when you edit me you do some sweet-kickass-friggin'-magic, man. I know if you shape that article a little you'd make it look goood with an extra O.

I know the fact's pointed are 99.9906% acurate, but you know me I can't avoid writing like a geek. Not to mention my grammar...hehe. You are also welcome to take part in the decition of what to do when the article is ready (I asked for some time before deciding)

REgards.

--T-man, the wise 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Animalvegetablemineralman.jpg

Hi Josiah, I notice you've marked the above image as not being an orphan. My reading of fair use policy is that unless it is displayed in an article, sadly it is an orphan and should be deleted. At the moment it is only listed on the Talk:Doom Patrol page. I have to say, from my point of view the image is not actually needed as yet, and can be easily replaced if it is. What are your thoughts? Steve block Talk 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had labelled it as not-an-orphan in part because I'm working on a Doom Patrol villains article which I'd hoped to put up in a week or so. (It's in my sandbox at the moment, and I haven't gotten very far yet.) I thought that if the image was going to be used anywhere, it would be there. However, I'm not crazy about the way the image is cropped (it would be better to use the full cover, I think) and if it's technically still an orphan I think it would be fine for it to be deleted and a replacement found. (I don't have a scanner, and I'm inept at image manipulation anyway, so I'll have to let someone else provide it.)
By the way, is it OK per fair use policy if I put a fair-use image in my sandbox article while it's under development? I know it's technically not in article space, but it's heading there and it's in development to be part of an article. How strict are the fair-use rules about that sort of thing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of fair use policy is that once someone notices it, they are within their rights to tag it as orphan and then there's a week before it gets deleted as such. So my advice would be that once an image used only in a user's sandbox is tagged, get a move on writing the article. The fair use rules are very strict, although individual admins may not apply them as strictly as they are written. The image in question is easily found on the net if you require one. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS

is there a particular reason why ten minutes after i made my revisions to the TARDIS entry you eraased them all?

especially seeing as most, if not all of them, were , in fact correct, and within either 'canon' as derived by your own wikipedia who project, or by the nature of them being direct televisual references?

And those that may be in question...ie. book references, would logically be ok since you cannot feasibly remove my reference to 'The Gallifrey Chronicles' without removing reference to LUngbarrow etc.

I am more than a little angered by this, since i spent time and energy put those things in the right place and making sure I did not trample over stuff that had been written before.

I have now registered, so I am not a faceless IP address, and would appreciate an explanation as to why it is you deem your expertise to be greater than anyone elses in this area.

Jaime9526 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaime. I didn't revert your changes to the TARDIS page; I rephrased one comment about TARDISes being "birthed", for accuracy (I believe the idea of TARDISes being "born" originates in the New Adventures) and to improve the flow of the paragraph. Khaosworks reverted the rest of them. I can't say why he did that, but it might have been because he thought the information from the novels was too tangential to be included in the main TARDIS article. Perhaps you could ask him, or ask for discussion of your proposed changes on the TARDIS talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps..

yes, i realize khaosworkz had more do with it than yourself afterwards...although the birthed idea is also heavily present in all of the 8DA BBC books, (notably in the concept of the eighth's fear of time lords 'raping' compassion to produce type 102 tardis' and in the cradles etc.....) in fact thats mainly where it comes from not the NA 's. Since Lungbarrow, Sanctuary aetc are mentioned throughout the article on the TARDIS, its unfair to discount the concept on the grounds of canonicity...although i see why you write it that way at least. I according to this wiki who project thing the books are canon incidentally.....and theres a few NA references in the new series....catch the reference to Lucifer from Lucifer Rising on the weakest link? and I'm pretty certain the Thracian Ambassadors party that cassandra attended was an NA thing too......

anyhoo, you can see why i might be a little....annoyed. I didnt edit it out of any concern other than adding information....I didnt take a single thing out. Only putting in new things. So having my edits removed is rather annoying....

it seems to be a trend around Who entries from what i can gather reading about the place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaime9526 (talk • contribs) 00:18, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation in Talk:TARDIS. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally...

perhaps you should also answer in the post where i asked my question......becuase then its all rather more in plain sight..........makes you look better...amkes me look better....and if you're copying and pasting your answer into this little area...do me a favor an put my answer to your answer underneath it, save me typing again? cheers.....

i really do think theres something weird going on in wiki who land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaime9526 (talk • contribs) 01:21, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Copied as requested. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou very much........i'd like to propose a chinwag at some point...great minds and all of that, mix up some strange matter etc. Things go much nicer with lots of communication dont you think? I reckon we can make wikipedia doctor who entries som much nearer to perfect as a group you know..... and a chat would like the good old days of the jade pagoda...lets really make this DW stuff great, show why its the best thing since unburnt slices of toasted white bread hmm?Jaime9526 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526[reply]
Jamie, There seems to be persons on Wiki who delight in being the only expert on whatever it is they claim to know, wether the topic is debatable or not, and feel that ANY alteration from what they write is incorrect, and must be removed. I refer to Khaosworks in this case. That being said, TARDIS' are "born" in a sense, not made, and "The Satan Pit" references TARDIS's being grown, not built. 66.252.250.251 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you beat me to that one...

Hey, I was just off to revert some more vandalism at Swansea_City_A.F.C. and noticed that you'd beaten me to it. Looks like you may be dealing with the vandal so I'll keep watching. Keep up the good work. - Stevecov 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imbros and Tenedos

Another effort to move this to the Turkish names; I wouldn't want to leave you out of this. Septentrionalis 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Her working titles

Could you transcribe the section of DWM discussing the working titles? They kind of interest me. Thanks very much indeed.--Keycard (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much! Quite intersting.--Keycard (talk) 07:18, 22

June 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Jane and Concensus

Josiah, now that things have calmed down a bit, I'll make that arguement. First of all, Sarah Jane is a bit different than the Major as her appearances tend to be direct involvement with the adventure at hand rather than as an observer to it. Also, the Major does not tend to travel with the Doctor. Sarah Jane is nearly unique among companions also, in that there was the drama of "being left behind" was dealt with in a direct way. She shares an almost romantic involvement with the Doctor like almost no one else save Rose or Romana. Add these together, and "School Reunion" feels as if she's "rejoined the team" for that story, instead of being a guest.
That being said, I'm not unreasonable. Now that I see a consistant "vote" against her inclusion, I'm ok with her being left out. My original issue was that given the four edits I'd made, ALL of them were almost immediately erased, none of them retained, and all by one editor. It wasn't just about Sarah, even an observation orgiinally made by another editor was removed. Each change was simply deemed "irrelevant", and that was it. When I objected and asked for explaination, none was offered. In fact, my objection was ruled grounds for my being blocked from further edit, again without explaination or discussion, except for, "Oh, well, you edited multiple times". If Wikipedia is supposed to be about concensus, then discussion is paramount. If someone had said to me, "Jeez, I'm not sure including Sarah is a good idea, lets ask some others, I would have been ok with that. Instead, I got "WE are the Doctor Who Wikiproject, we shall decide what goes here, we have Admins, and you are banished for your disagrement!" This seems to be how Wikipedia is run.
I've run into this once before, editing the Bernie Sanders page. Bernie is a congressman who leans to the left politically. I lean to the right, but am also an expert on Sanders, living in the same town, and knowing his entire family on a name basis. I included a few edits which balanced his positions and showed an alternative viewpoint, using Sanders own quotes and statements. My references were meticulous, and no one challenged the accuracy of my statments. Instead, the edits were termed "weasal words", "POV", "Vandalism", you name it. They were erased without explaination quickly and entirely. When I restored them, the response I got, from one or two editors was "Hold on, we need a sec to go get an Admin and ban you, ok?" My story was that the POV was inherent in the article without a balanced view, their story was "Anythng is this article which may show Sanders in anything less than a glowing light must go!" It really makes me not want to have anything to do with Wiki. It seems to be a haven for cyber bullies. 72.92.152.161 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at Talk:Tenth Doctor#On consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josiah_Rowe/Archive_4&oldid=1145199528"