JoshuaZ
Next archiving will occur around July 30
Important I prefer to keep conversations in one place. So if you send put a talk message on my page, I will respond there. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.
My Rfa
Thanks for the question JoshuaZ I have now answered them on my rfa Benon 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to this.
I guess I did something wrong; thank you for assuming my good faith. Nonetheless, could you tell me how I erred? Thanks. Profnjm 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you did wrong, sometimes the Wiki software just misbehaves and the end of an article gets cut off. That may have happened here. (Also you may want to sign the basis for the dispute if you were involved (since the basis section needs two people for the RfC to survive)). JoshuaZ 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
RfA
Congratulations! Though your RfA isn't over yet, so far you've gotten 130 support votes which ranks you number 4 on WP:100! Also, I suggest archiving your talk page.--☆TBC☆ 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Archiving done. Thanks. I'm pretty sure the high vote count is at least partially due to the general inflation of number of Wikipedians participating in various processes(there was a discussion about this topic on the WP:100 talk page recently). It might also indicate that all the users who were worried that I'm too political were correct...JoshuaZ 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats - your RFA is over now. I'm confident you'll do a good job. Guettarda 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
AN/I
The frequency with which I find myself agreeing categorically (I hope you'll permit me an adverb or two) with you is remarkable, and your comments apropos of the indef block of Avilla once more lead me to be altogether confident that you will be an excellent admin. A special commendation is in order for your supposition that Presumably if a convicted murderer was making good edits we would let the murderer edit; I've made the same case passim here, and it's good to see that you properly appreciate that the goal of the project is the production of a good encyclopedia, toward which end all good contributions are appreciated, irrespective of the extra-Wiki interpersonal qualities of the editors offering them. Joe 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations!
| Congratulations! |
|---|
| It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: |
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Trust you'll do well; congrats! ~ PseudoSudo 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Grr, was going to go to bed and wait until morning, but now must see what new buttons do. Thanks Essjay. Thanks Pseudo. Ok, quick look at admin tools and then bed. JoshuaZ 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, just to clarify the 5 minutes comment was meant as a joke. JoshuaZ 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Have fun with the new tools; as a first rite of initiation you have to go do a large range-block on AOL IPs. --Cyde Weys 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Really? I was thinking of a range block from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. It would handle all our vandalsim. (Actually is all zeros valid?). JoshuaZ 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations on this! Metamagician3000 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats!! Now get to cleaning with the new mop! Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Enjoy the mop. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations, excellent news, thought you'd been here longer. Meant to vote support but was nagged into some heavy mainspace work over the last couple of weeks and missed it:curses. Glad you're in, now you can join us Rouge characters! :) ...dave souza, talk 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Enjoy the mop. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations Joshua! That was an impressive display of support. Cheers. FeloniousMonk 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! Keep up the good work -- and keep odd perfect numbers up, eh? --CRGreathouse 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats, you'll be great. Please contact me by email or Talk if I can help in any way - I'm afraid you are probably too nice to be a rouge admin, though... Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations
| Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Rollback
Rollback takes out all the edits by the last person to edit the article, not just the most recent edit. Guettarda 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. JoshuaZ 12:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OHHhhhhh
I get it!! I thought you meant that was all of the edits from RFA's ever. Ok, oops. Now it's too late to change my vote to neutral! the_ed17(talk)Use these! 14:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Fan mail
Congratulations! May your fan mail from your first block and delete be as specific and helpful as mine. [1][2] [3] FloNight talk 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Salaam und Mazel tov
May your adminship be dank.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit
The afd for Preying from the Pulpit resulted in no consensus. Now three users who wanted the material deleted are claiming that LINKS to partial audio clips of a 10:00 PM news broadcast violate copyright violations. These three users just happen to had called me names and broke WP:CIVIL over past disagreements related to the subject. Some more opinions are welcome. Arbusto 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- We do not link to material which violates copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Congragulations!!!!
You're an admin now! How does it feel? Tobyk777 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hectic. Also, I need to thank you for your strong, well articulated support vote. JoshuaZ 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Tobyk777 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 8th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 19 | 8 May 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Degeneration
It seems to me that the degeneration theory/hypothesis is notable for the reasons that a book about it sold more than 10,000 copies, establishing the author as notable, and that it is noted on the dutch wikipedia. Otherwise, what is a good standard for such hypotheses? Bob A 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that the book has sold 10,000 copies? JoshuaZ 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes; both the english and dutch websites say so. Bob A 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it must be true if they say so! I followed the links, and must say it's entertaining. From "a summary of the degeneration-theory":
- "And more recently biochemist Michael Behe published his book Darwin's Black Box, that caused a lot of commotion, especially within the scientific community. With strong arguments about 'Irreducible Complexity' he clearly shows the duo 'mutation + selection' is falling short."
- Well, it made me laugh! Just skimming the start, the "theory" looks to be a fusion of ID and devolution (fallacy). Where do they get all the suckers to buy this: is it a sign of degeneration? ;) ...dave souza, talk 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would be a stretch to say that they're lying about such a statement of fact. Anyway, i was able to find it on sundry online stores. Bob A 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The book is not listed on Amazon, its website looks like an essentially personal website which does not meet WP:RS and it looks self-published among other issues. If however, you want, I will undelete and list the article on AfD to get a general consensus. JoshuaZ 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The notability of the book and the author are quite distinct from the notability of the "theory". If you believe that the book is notable, then write an article about the book. I doubt the author is notable, but that's something for AFD to decide. However, the "theory" is most definitely not notable, except as a fallacy. I'd support a redirect to [[devolution {fallacy)]]. For it to count as a notable biological hypothesis it would have to be published in a relevant journal, and be cited and addressed by scientific peers. A book published by an academic press would be fine. A book published by a vanity press, no matter how successful, does not create a notable scientific theory. Guettarda 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it were sufficiently acceptable, it could merit its own article with a link from the fringe theories list. I haven't seen any evidence that it does. JoshuaZ 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies for breenging in, JoshuaZ is absolutely right to focus on WP:RS. It may turn out to be a reincarnation or rebranding of ID, though that seems unlikely to be accepted by the usual crew, but if and when it does it'll be reported on reliable mainstream sources. ...dave souza, talk 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think i agree with guettarda; a redirect would probably be a good idea. Bob A 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it were sufficiently acceptable, it could merit its own article with a link from the fringe theories list. I haven't seen any evidence that it does. JoshuaZ 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The notability of the book and the author are quite distinct from the notability of the "theory". If you believe that the book is notable, then write an article about the book. I doubt the author is notable, but that's something for AFD to decide. However, the "theory" is most definitely not notable, except as a fallacy. I'd support a redirect to [[devolution {fallacy)]]. For it to count as a notable biological hypothesis it would have to be published in a relevant journal, and be cited and addressed by scientific peers. A book published by an academic press would be fine. A book published by a vanity press, no matter how successful, does not create a notable scientific theory. Guettarda 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 220.227.152.109 (talk · contribs)
I dont think there will be any opposition on unblocking him. This user was blocked contrary to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, without any warnings. --Andy123(talk) 11:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
More congratulations
Nice to see you sysopped so fast, with such strong support and so little opposition. Well done and good luck from someone who, while you were basking in the applause of the faithful, was basking in the sun, or rather in the shade, in a green island far from all editors' knowing :-) AvB ÷ talk 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The banned template
I'm not sure what the issue is. This is a far simpler solution. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure that that change is accurate for all the uses of the template? That works in our case, but I'm not sure it works in every ___location the template is used. JoshuaZ 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. This probably calls for an application of #if or some other template wizardry to account for complicated situations. Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Re:Question about block of User:209.120.161.44
Why did you block this user? The user did not vandalize after the test4. JoshuaZ 14:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- My investigation began several minutes before my 10:16 block, which was the same minute that you posted this note to Anger22's AIV listing. I did not encounter your test4 edit until a couple minutes later when I got around to leaving my test5. Our conflict, as you can see, is purely temporal. The reason I blocked, rather than giving a test4, was because 7 of their 8 edits during the hour were clear vandalism, during which time they received 5 warnings, including two block-mentioning test3-equivalents. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. ×Meegs 15:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Joshua. I noticed a couple of days ago you followed the above user, Ceid family, in his disruptive page creating. You warned him not to recreate the article on his talk page. He created the article Pavlos Xatzipantelidis which was speedy deleted 3-4 times during his first round of contributions. He came back and started the article Pavlos Hatzipantelidis. It looks fine, but but when I google searched it, it came up with 0 results and a possible typo error. I don't believe a word written on the Pavlos Hatzipantelidis page because it only has one editor, Ceid family. Could you please delete this page, once again, and look into the possibility of blocking Ceid family as a vandalism account only. Thank you! DGX 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Update: You may want to look at the article Trond Sollied. Notice some similarities? Ceid family copy and pasted the article Trond Sollied and starting the article Pavlos Hatzipantelidis with the information copied from the Trond Sollied page. The only differances in the two pages are the name of the person and, strangely, the nationality. (from Norwegian to Greek). DGX 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have placed the article for speedy deletion under "patent nonsense" and hopefully this will be resolved. DGX 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Update: You may want to look at the article Trond Sollied. Notice some similarities? Ceid family copy and pasted the article Trond Sollied and starting the article Pavlos Hatzipantelidis with the information copied from the Trond Sollied page. The only differances in the two pages are the name of the person and, strangely, the nationality. (from Norwegian to Greek). DGX 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
Hi JoshuaZ,
Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.
Cheers
Smile!
~Kylu (u has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
♥ Kylu (talk • contribs • stars • email • logs • count) 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Just in case it isn't clear from my reply to your comment there, it's a joke. It's a take off of the unrealistic objections some people place. I expect Bucketsofg will make a trivial post to a portal talk page and I'll change to support, or if no such edit has been made in a few days I'll change to support anyway.-gadfium 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Your question at my RfA
Thanks for your question, JoshZ. I've done my best to answer it at my RfA. Bucketsofg✐
Signpost updated for May 15th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 20 | 15 May 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Thanks
The removal of unaccredited, the news story of a deacon convicted of molesting a 7 year old at the church, a blind man banned from the church, and others has repeatedly been removed for no reason. Arbusto 03:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- A RfC has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Arbusto 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Coming Clean
JoshuaZ, there is a message for you and all others who put up with my recient antics on my talk page. 216.164.203.90 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
RfA Thank You!
Thanks JoshuaZ,
I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. Not that tallies mean anything, but it occurs to me: I barely outpaced you, and yet I've been here three times as long -- to me, this shows that you are truly amazing, a superman among wikipedians! :) Of course, I knew that long before the RfA, anyway! ;)
RfA questions
Hi, I could not help but notice your questions on several RfA’s. I have asked questions on a couple of RfA’s and am looking for guidance. I was wondering how you decide about asking questions. Do you talk with other RfA reviewers first? Do you warn the nominee ahead of time? Should I have not sprung my question about “the anon who did the right thing the wrong way” on Zpb52? I was trying to get a handle on his critical thinking skills. Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I read the candidate's preliminary questions, then I read all the comments and oppose/support/neutral votes. I then look at the user's last 2000 edits and tailor questions based on that. My main criteria for bringing up questions are: if there answer to default question 1 includes an area where they don't seem to have prior experience or seem to have recent mistakes or other problems then I ask them to help me understand their record more. If I find any other issues, such as serious conflicts not previously mentioned in question 3 I ask about it. In general I ask any question that I a) want to know the answer to or b) could alter how I would vote or that is about an issue which has affected how other users have voted in the past on that RfA or other RfAs c) some issue has come up that I think the user should have a chance to respond to without getting the general critiques of being "argumentative" (which occurs often if they respond to concerns in the oppose section). I'm not sure that helps at all since these are all very subjective idiosyncratic standards. The only thing I would like to emphasize is that it is good to alert users on their talk pages that you have added questions since the questions appear at the very bottom of the RfA and they might not notice them otherwise. JoshuaZ 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. You didn't ask me anything. Looks I already have too much baggage? Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No baggage issues. Just supported you (which I could have sworn I had already done). I wonder if that constitutes vote stacking since you must have known what my response was going to be? JoshuaZ 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Islamic creationism
Hi. I saw that you worked on that article and so I assume that you're interested in the subject, and maybe would like to help out at Fethullah Gülen, where his disciples deny his connection to the ID movement, and keep removing references to the subject. Azate 06:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Check
Check how the noticeboard looks...Forest
Block period
Hey Joshua just saw you blocking of the anon I reported to WP:AIV & was wondering, How do you decide the period of a block? I've seen some admins block for 31 hours for the same offences while you blocked him for 24 hours. Whats the deal with that?
Thanks
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement about what length blocks to use at what frequency, the admin recommended reading only gives some basic guidelines for when to use blocks of varying lengths. I (and a few other admins) use the 31 hour block when it is a returning vandal who is vandalizing at the same time of day as their previous vandalism. This is particularly useful when dealing with IPs from school addresses since the vandalism occurs during set times, such as during library periods. Incidentally, I'm annoyed that you're RfA didn't succeed, since I'm now stuck blocking all the vandals you find. I can't wait for another month and a half so you can do it yourself...JoshuaZ 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining that. The time from when I place a test4 on a vandal's page & report him to AIV & then see him vandalize while I wait for an admin to block him, is when I really wish my RFA had succeeded. But thanks again for all the help & support. BTW how is life with the new mop? Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
AN/I
No problem re {{unsigned}} ; I think I'll forgo WP:RFDA for now :). Of course, in today's climate, failing to sign one's post isn't quite as a big a problem as one's signing. Joe 04:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
American System
Which notion do you speak of for clarity? --Northmeister 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to your inquiry, if you have any further questions - just ask. I am in no way promoting LaRouche, if such promotion is inferred, it is by accident of history - as I can't control what that man supports or does not support - the article is a historic and economic one and must present the facts as historians and economists present them. Never have I linked to or used sources related to that man or his movement. The sources are plentiful and can be read - throughout the discussion and in the article itself to links online and at the public library or bookstore or any quotes I give that can be checked for validity. --Northmeister 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Diploma mills getting hit by one user
These removals at Glendale University[4] National Distance Learning Accreditation Council[5], list of unaccredited schools[6], and accreditation mills[7], [8] need to be watched. Arbusto 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Four warnings given to Dr_John101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Arbusto 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Three warnings given to Robincie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Arbusto 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you
|
The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. |
Presuppositional apologetics
Greetings. I was one of the primary authors of the article on presuppositional apologetics which has apparently been pulled into some broader controversy over Jonathan Sarfati and creationism edits. I don't have any knowledge of that except what I read (i.e., skimmed) on User_talk:203.213.77.138, and I don't really care to get involved except as it touches the articles I am interested in. I understand there may be extenuating circumstances if those edits in presuppositional apologetics violate some broader policy that an arbcom has required of 58.*, but I think they were acceptable in se, including the links. Do you mind if I restore them? --Flex 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all, if you think the edits were good then you are more than welcome to put them back in. JoshuaZ 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
help me Josh
JoshuaZ, DrBat is at it again on the Rachel Summers, and he practically called me MetaStar's sockpuppet. I'm hurt, I thought that finally becaming a Wiki-User was going to be fun, but in less than a day, it's already got me upset. Just because I picked a picture that MetaStar picked doen't make me a sockpuppet, does it? MarvelousGirl 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a check user request which should clear you if you are not a sockpuppet. Hold tight for a day or two and it should be cleared up. JoshuaZ 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 22nd.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 21 | 22 May 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Number of Chevrons on a Stargate
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.229.14.246#Number_of_Chevrons_on_the_stargate.
Indeed you are right, there are 9 chevrons. It seems that on TV, the bottom two are hidden from view and are not used in an address. Do you know why this is? Mikesc86
- Normal addresses only take 7, we have seen special addresses that are far away taking more, like the Asgard homeward which took 8 to dial from earth (the exact episode eludes me). JoshuaZ 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup!
 |
Thank you, JoshuaZ! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
"Thank you"
JoshuaZ, thank you SO much for accusing me of being a sockpuppet of someone who joined almost a month AFTER I did. Thank you for kicking me off wikipedia. Thank you for not checking to see if my internet provider used dynamic IP's, so that muliptle computers could have similar or matching IP addresses. Thank you for never contacting me about this before you made this decision. Thank you for showing me the true nature of Wikipedia, a community of people who will pass judgement on the innocent to punish the guilty. All the times I made articles, all of the vandalism I helped revert, all of the genuinely fun conversations I had with other users, mean nothing becuase my IP address matched some unfriendly user. Thank you JoshuaZ for making me wish I had never even heard of Wikipedia! Coronis
71.145.175.227
Can you block 'em now, please? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:71.145.175.227, who else? :)
Cheers, and thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've given him a test4, if he continues I will block. JoshuaZ 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- He likes you, too. <<LOL>> :) Dlohcierekim 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- And now he is unable to express his affection. How sad. JoshuaZ 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- <<ROF, LOL>>Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- He likes you, too. <<LOL>> :) Dlohcierekim 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Joshua! When I decided to accept my nomination for adminship, one of the things that went through my mind was, "I wonder what questions JoshuaZ will have for me?" Imagine my surprise (and delight) at the fact that you didn't feel the need to ask me anything more. Thank you very much for your support, and if there's ever anything that you feel I could be doing better, please leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Indef block of 216.164.203.90
Generally speaking, yes, you're right, but I believe there are exceptions, and I believe this is one of them. For obvious reasons, however, this linked post invites review. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
I was wondering if you could provide me with some creative criticism on my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3. This way, I can at least improve. Computerjoe's talk 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
 | Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg E/L/T 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
My RfC
RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi
Can you show me where you have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" with me? I cannot recall a single point in time where you have addressed me at all -- let alone any time that you tried to resolve a dispute with me. Am I missing something here? I haven't gotten the impression in the last month that Arbustoo had much support for his edits in the Hyles articles. Do you actually support the way that Arbustoo has added information from newspaper articles -- by citing ONLY the most critical comments and phrasing them ONLY in the most disparaging manner? Do you support the way that Arbustoo has neglected to write those edits in a NPOV manner? Do you support the way that Arbustoo has left out all information that refutes or mitigates the criticisms and critiques that he inserts in the article?
For just one of example of this, the article called "Baptism by innuendo" that appeared in the Northwest Indiana Times (an article that Arbustoo has read and cited) is headlined on the premise that the Preying in the Pulpit story is based on nothing more than innuendo and that it shouldn't have aired on TV. Here are some choice quotes from the article: "If one were to take the insinuations of Detroit television station WJBK-TV seriously, one could get the impression that the First Baptist Church of Hammond is a sex-crime factory and that its pastors school in Hammond and the affiliated Hyles Anderson College in Schererville are institutions where people minor in molestation." and "There is no large institution of any kind where some wrongdoers cannot be found. First Baptist and its affiliated institutions are no exception. To tar an entire congregation or student body and alumni with indiscriminate innuendo is highly irresponsible." and "First Baptist has a devoted congregation of devout Christians who take their faith very seriously." and "As to the allegations that First Baptist is really "a cult without a compound," as a WJBK report puts it based on statements made by some former members, it is a matter of opinion. Government has no business determining what constitutes a church and what makes for a cult. Furthermore, the tag of "cult" is not necessarily indicative of criminal activity." and also "The pastor's continued support for Ballenger and insistence on his innocence may be admirable but the caution warranted by the conviction cannot be ignored. His responsibilities as pastor and citizen should carry greater weight than his personal loyalty to a friend"
However, the only comment that Arbustoo pulled out of this article that was headlined criticizing the innuendo found in Preying from the Pulpit was this one: "Regrettably, Hyles does not seem to think that Ballenger's conviction is something that should require the former deacon to be removed from any contact with church children."
If you look at all the sources that Arbustoo has used to make claims in the articles about Hyles, you will see a similar pattern of fraud and deception that Arbusto uses to make it seem like Hyles is a despicable creature that has no redeeming qualities nor any explanation for the outrageous stories told about him. It is completely unfair and against the policy of WP:NPOV that this should happen.
I look forward to you help in editing or discussing the actual Hyles articles. I know that Wikipedia can do better than this, and I'm confident that if you gave the situation a deeper look you'll agree that there are some significant problems with the way Arbustoo has inserted his biased edits into the articles.
As a step forward, I will admit that I have also gotten testy with Arbusto and wrote things that I could have phrased better. I won't make excuses for that behaviour and I will try to keep my head cooler in the future. Vivaldi (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Highway's RfA
Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway Rainbow Sneakers
Tone's RfA thanks
Hi! I would normally ask User:JzG for this favour, but I wonder if you could help out instead. My first launch into WP was to write this article, which was deleted. There is some discussion on my talk page about what to do next with the deleting admin and JzG, and also the original AfD proposer. Someone has asked to see it now, and I don't have a copy. I wonder if you could userfy it to help an acceptable article to be written ie to Stephen B Streater/FORscene. Stephen B Streater 06:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate block?
Hi, JoshuaZ! Checking up idly on a vandal IP that was mentioned in an RFAr case, I found them hard at work, vandalizing the wiki day by day. Even though you gave them a well-earned 12-week block on May 10... But look what happened one minute later ! Maybe you want to reinstate your block, or some block? Just a thought. Best, Bishonen | talk 06:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
RfA
I notcied that you've left messages for Zappa.jake on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages. I have asked him to stop here. Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here. Sorry, zappa.jake (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry
I'd like your opinion here. We have a weird situation.-- The ikiroid 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting 209.6.229.16's edits. Some friends of mine apparently find my usage of Wikipedia entertaining, to say the least, and the IP in question thought it would be funny to use my name in random edits and then link me to his contributions. I told him to stop, so hopefully he will do so (My IP is somewhere near the 66.30.230.xx range just for reference's sake). Thanks again. Cowman109Talk 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 29th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 22 | 29 May 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Support
I support your reblock of Blu_Aardvark... I will not wheel war about it but if this user is unblocked and I am the first to notice it I will reblock. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
| File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg | Hello joshua. Thank you for your full support (I guess the lack of questioning means something) at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
- You've got mail.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- and more. I see you're online.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
I see that you are doing hard work to protect Harun Yahya's page from vandalism. Zahid 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting at my RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This RfC has been open for 2 weeks and so far only Arbustoo (talk · contribs) has been able to say that they have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Also, it appears that Arbustoo has not been on Wikipedia for at least a week. Please delete the RfC as the rules of RfCs suggest should happen when 48 hours pass and only one person is able to certify the basis. I understand that you are on Arbustoo's team, but hopefully you will still follow the guidelines at the top of the RfC that suggest these things should be deleted in 48 hours if they aren't properly certified. Vivaldi (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to discuss with you, your opinion of the edits that Arbustoo has made to the Hyles related articles, because I have not seen any editors that believe that Arbustoo is editing these articles in good faith. Do you believe that Arbustoo is writing the articles using neutral language? Do you believe that extracting only criticism of Hyles from a source, while ignoring the mitigating factors in the same source is appropriate? I would encourage you to examine each of Arbustoo's edits and try to convince me that Arbustoo is being fair and neutral in his editing. Vivaldi (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I generally endorse Arbustoo's edits, but agree with you about deleting the RfC. I will delete it. If there are particular edits of Arbusto that you have an issue with I would be more than happy to take a look/comment. I do not have the time or inclination to go through each one. JoshuaZ 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for being a Good Guy, Joshua. I am starting to return, but I'd still value extra vigilance on the POV-pushers, since I'm not going to be around half as much as usual for a while. Just zis Guy you know? 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Request for Help
Hello .. I was searching for something like HelpMeBoard page, because I need help with these two articles: I created Czech National Revival, haven't written much yet, but I still need a native English speaker to help me find / correct my English errors.
The other article I edited was Josef Jungmann. Previously, this article contained some info from Catholic encyclopedia about some German priest. However, even the German version of wikipedia contains information about the Czech writer. I moved the original article to Josef Jungmann (German) and have translated (from German wikipedia) / written the article about "our" Josef Jungmann. This will be even more messy, grammar-wise because I was translating from one foreign language into another.
Do you know where I could get some help with this? If you do, would you please be so polite and copy/post my request there? Let me know please. ackoz 
00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the German article you may want to talk to User:Jim62sch or some other user who has a decent understanding of German. As for the issue of the English in Czech National Revival, I'll be happy to take a look for any English grammar issues. JoshuaZ 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Blu Aardvark
I have unblocked him to participate in his arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 5th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 23 | 5 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. --digital_me(t/c) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-linking from quotes discussion
Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
User FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) left one comment on my talk page and one comment on the merge discussion at Preying from the Pulpit. I responded to those comments on the talk pages. Because I responded, FeloniousMonk says that he has "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" with me and he reinstated the RfC that you closed. I have not made any changes to the Preying from the Pulpit article since FeloniousMonk left his comments. I am more than willing to edit with the idea of developing a consensus. I just want to figure out what the consensus is, which requires discussion. FeloniousMonk (like yourself) has not participated in this discussion on any of the talk pages prior, so there is no means for me to figure out what his viewpoints are -- or any other editors that don't contribute to the discussion. I believe FeloniousMonk made this single comment for the sole purpose of being able to say that he has "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" so that he could reinstate my RfC. Vivaldi (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is innappropriate for an editor like Felonious to reopen a deleted RfC. More than 48 hours passed and it was appropriately deleted by an admin. If felonious wants to reopen the discussion he should have to start over and get another 2 people to certify the basis for whatever dispute there still is. I want to edit with the idea of consensus for my edits, but I cannot read minds. I would appreciate your thoughts on the appropriateness of FeloniousMonk reinstating my RfC. Vivaldi (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any problem reinstating a deleted RfC. Also, I did delete with a summary leaving it open for undeletion if someone else thought that they should list themselves. I don't really have any strong opinion on Felonious' signing the RfC, but I think that insisting he start an entirely new RfC when multiple users have endorsed positions on the RfC as at best an overemphasis on policy, and since I can't find any policy that seems to imply that there would be an issue with it, I'm puzzled by that comment. In any event, I wouldn't worry too much about the RfC, many users get RfCs, some of our best admins get them frequently. An RfC is a useful chance to get feedback about one's editing habits and I would recommend taking it in stride. JoshuaZ 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you believe that FeloniousMonk has "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute with me? Seriously? What exactly is the specific dispute that FeloniousMonk had with me and how did he try to resolve it and how did he determine that he failed in his attempt to resolve it? And I'm not worried about the RfC. I am confident that I am making appropriate edits and following the policies of Wikipedia. I have the support of numerous admins and other editors through my work on other articles on Wikipedia and even through my work on the Hyles articles -- where most of the editors that have actually commented on the talk pages have disagreed with a single editor named arbustoo (talk · contribs) and have complimented me. I believe at last count there were 18 seperate individuals (not counting people from multiple IPs) that had commented about Arbustoo's innappropriate edits on the talk pages and in the edit summaries. I'm not about to waste any more time by starting up an RfC for Arbustoo (who appears to be gone anyway) -- and in any case, I know that I would be accused of "recruiting" people to my side if I notified each of these people of an RfC against Arbustoo -- although its quite apparent that Arbustoo has done his fair share of "recruiting" himself -- and perhaps not solely through the open channels on talk pages. Vivaldi (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Inciting violence
Hello Joshua. I have found a post where a user said that the subject of a wikipedia article should be killed, but this is 2 months old. Also frequent swearing, insulting opposing editors as brainwashed, idiots, etc. What do you think?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- If the editor hasn't done anything, I wouldn't worry about it too much, although if the threat looks minimally credible then it should probably be mentioned on WP:ANI to be discussed there. If the editor still edits it might make sense to drop them a line noting that you noticed the behavior and pointing them to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. JoshuaZ 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
CXR
Thanks for the question. I was the physician who ordered the CXR, so as per Canadian law, I am the owner of the study, and, as such licensed it under GFDL. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Joshua, a bit of a clarification. I asked my secretary to look into it this morning. Chest x-rays are owned by the patient (or in this case, the guardian). For interesting pictures, my hospital has a consent form authorizing release for academic purposes (papers, etc.) and the patient's mother signed this for the CXR in question. Technically then, it would be her releasing it per GFDL. I've changed the tag in question. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. JoshuaZ 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
High Schools
Thanks for your comment about the failure of the official policy concerning high schools. While official, I have found the admins who close the AfD nearly always keep high schools, regardless of notability. I can even find some sympathy to the idea of consolidating some vandalism with such lightning rods. Cheers! Ted 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 12th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
| File:Motherussia.jpg | Hello JoshuaZ, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Here's a barnstar to thank you for stepping in for me. I am most grateful. I will post the gory details at some point in the not-too-distant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 19th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 26th.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
BOB CORNUKE
I noticed you comments on the Cornuke talk page about the use of academics in the article. Again, a user has added unverified claims to the article to back up Cornuke. The problem is:
- "However, when I contacted some of these individuals, they assured me they never made such statements, neither did they feel Jebel al-Lawz was the real Mount Sinai. (Some of the information they posted at the time of this investigation, like the quotes from acknowledged archaeologists and scholars that suggest they supported the Jebel al-Lawz site have been removed from their site since then.) It became quickly obvious that some of the information on the BASE Institute site was not legitimate."[9]
- "In an interview with Hershel Shanks, Prof. Frank Moore Cross, retired professor of Hebrew at Harvard University opines that the mountain of God was located in the Land of Midian. When asked if he had a guess what mountain might be Mt. Sinai, he responded, "I really don't. There are several enormous mountains in what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia. Jebel el-Lawz is the highest of the mountain in Midian 8,465 feet higher than any mountain in the Sinai Peninsula; but biblical Mt. Sinai need not be the highest mountain. There is some reason to search for it in southern Edom, which was Midianite terrain before the expansion of the Edomites south" (Shanks 1992:32). He later put the "Midian Hypothesis" in print, but did not endorse any mountains for the ___location of Mt. Sinai (Cross 1998: 60-68)."[10]
The user is trying to use Cross and others as back up the claims without providing independent proof for such questionable claims. The source he is adding is contradicted by at least these two sources.
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Signpost updated for July 10th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 28 | 10 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
RfA thanks
Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR
thanks. Drmagic 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
My RfA thanks
|
Hello JoshuaZ, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
please see
please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Fox News Channel Contorversies
Whatever your opinion is of WingNut, please take time to read the Talk page of this article before blindly reverting his edits. No fewer than 4 editors found the change that WingNut reverted to be unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV. If you disagree, please voice your opinion on the Talk page before reverting again. Isarig 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 17th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
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. Treebark (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Editing on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
User BillyTFried stareted some heavy re-editing of a section that has take much discussion to build without talking about it first. You have said his edits have merit because they are extensive. I dont think this is valid.
One of the reasons of the shortness of current content is a concious effor to keep the article size down, which has included creating 2 "subpages" and other measures to increase article quality. This is because this article is main page linked and takes a while to load leading to a lot of edit conflicts.
Perhaps BillyTFried is unaware of this, but even after I point him to the talk page he insited on the edits. Please view both history for the main article and the talk page.
In any case, even he admits his information is redundant coming from a previous article. A seealso should be enough to cover his concerns. --Cerejota 03:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll discuss this on the relevant talk page. The main problem to me seems to be that currently, which details are included seems to be biased. JoshuaZ 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I am just weary of random huge rewrites, regardless of reason... BTW, I moved the talk section to the relevant sub-section to keep things organized...--Cerejota 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
RfA
Hi there Joshua. I am fine with debating on RfAs, like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita,s o fire away. Awaiting a response. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm currently trying to only comment in RfAs where I think my comments/vote might change the outcome. The level of research required to make decisions on so many RfAs was time consuming. But to summarize my relevant view in the Sean Black case, I think that some of our best admins are occasionally uncivil and terse, and the real issue is whether the vast majority of their work is ok, which is the impression I get about Sean. I also disagree strongly with your looking at the raw number of admin actions, since naturally some admins will be more productive/use their admin buttons more frequently than others. Having an overall positive contribution and knowing that they won't massively screw up is a better standard. JoshuaZ 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What the Bleep Do We Know!?
Hello, I'm writing you to determine if there is concensus amoung recent editors of What the Bleep Do We Know!? to remove it's NPOV tag. Please weigh in with your opinion on the talk page Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?. Thanks!! Adelord 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
81.36.29.122
I did what you said, but I really think it belongs at WP:AVI, he needs to be blocked indefinitly, this has been going on forever. KojiDude (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 24th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 30 | 24 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
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. --Michael Snow 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you commented on the criticism at John D. Morris. Someone removed at negative information claiming it was a copyright violation. Do you agree? I restore the information because that person's motives are suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErRe (talk • contribs)
Intelligent Design
Is second draft better?
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. JDoorjam 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 [11]. 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 [12] 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.He 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 |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
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.He 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.
|
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)
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)