User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Please explain your rationale....

Before I completely blow up in anger and report you, I need to get my facts straight.

I added a link to the "links" section of the "Robert V. Gentry" article.

(rev history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_V._Gentry&diff=78784635&oldid=78783477 )

Here's the gist what I added...

<link to reputable article in favor of radiohalo theory> exposes how the Creationist model for the polonium radiohalos formation has been tested and verified

Then, you deleted it and said " (rv to NPOV/see WP:EL) "

OK, so if showing my "POV" in the following sentence -- " <link> exposes how the Creationist model for the polonium radiohalos formation has been tested and verified", how is the link RIGHT above it not showing their POV?

The sentence I'm referring to said the following...

<link to reputable article NOT in favor of radiohalo theory>> Answers In Creation expose showing that radiohalos do not support a young earth]

Please explain how this is breaking the links rules, how it shows my POV, and how the link right above it does not show my POV. Otherwise, please refrain from demonstrating your atheistic views and creating imbalances in articles. There is absolutely no plausible explanation I can think of for the little stunt you just pulled off. If I get no response within a couple of days, I'm assuming you deleted the link of false grounds, seeing as the remaining links in this particular article are as imbalanced or more than mine was. It makes absolutely no sense, and it does not violate any External Links laws (that I can see).

Additionally, I highly recommend you annotate your edits (minor or not) a little more descriptively. This would probably get rid of some of the garbage on your Talk page.

Thanks.

Ok, a few points. First I didn't notice the link above's wording. I have edited as well as restored your link with a more NPOV summary also (I don't think either the ICR or the AIC articles should be there, but that's a separate issue). When someone makes an edit that reverts yours there is no need to "blow up in anger" and "report" them. The vast majority of the time a simple note and a short discussion will resolve whatever is being discussed (in this case, that I had not noticed the POV description of the AIC article). In general, calm discussion will work better than threats and extreme comments. Also, on talk pages please sign your posts with four tildes(like this: ~~~~) , it will make it easier for others to see where your comments left off and when they were made. JoshuaZ 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing my point! Sorry about the language - I didn't really mean to give you "extreme threats", but I was caught up in the anger of the moment. Sorry nonetheless, and thanks once again. 71.199.202.80

[edit] Please don't ever assume to send a warning to my computer again

Several people have used this computer. I will speak to them. In the meantime, get a grip and don't send warnings. I have no idea why you would do that. Don't do it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.231.185.171 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Deucalionite

Hi, thanks for taking care of the Deucalionite case. He's always rather difficult to deal with, but yesterday was definitely one the more bizarre moments even by his standards. I'm not sure how serious one must take his ranting about his copyvios being part of a systematic breaching experiment. Most probably, those are just self-aggrandizing phantasies covering up for the much more trivial truth that he lacks the academic skills to summarize texts properly. He has in the meantime apologized to Diana ([1]) and what he says there sounds more realistic.

I do believe there are probably other problematic cases still around. I tidied up quite a bit back in June. One that's left is Panagiotis Danglis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (exact source unknown, probably close translation from an original Greek source somewhere.) He simply refuses to state his source. A similar case where he flatout refused to name his source was on Sclaveni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), but in that case I finally deleted the questionable content. Since I started monitoring him in June, he has taken to avoiding exact verbatim copies and uses very slightly reworded paraphrases instead. Recently, he's been creating a large series of stubs on historical treaties (see list on his userpage). I don't know what his source is, most of the pages are unreferenced, I guess he's taken most of it from some commen print source. In a few cases, like here: Treaty of Westminster (1153) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), cf. [2], one can identify a web source, and again it's a very close paraphrase.

  • Original: "This treaty allowed Stephen to remain King of England for life. It also stated that Stephen had adopted Henry Plantagenet as his heir. Stephen's second son, William, was to inherit all Stephen's baronial lands."
  • Deucalionite: "The Treaty of Westminster [...] allowed Stephen to remain King of England for life. The agreement also stated that Stephen adopt Henry Plantagenet as his heir. Stephen's second son, William, would inherit all of Stephen's baronial territories.".

From his reaction yesterday, I can't exclude the possibility that he genuinely believes that by rewording in this way he has avoided copyvio. If you have the stomach, read our "discussions" from June here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The more I look into it again, the more I believe intervention will be necessary here. The guy creates problematic articles faster than anybody can clean them up. Just since yesterday, he has created three more treaty stubs: Treaty of Raalte, Treaty of Berwick (1639), Treaty of Bongaja. Two are again unreferenced (as most of the earlier ones), the third ostensibly has an external link to a scholarly paper, but that is evidently not the real source actually used by him. From what he said yesterday, we can take it he has absolutely no intention of ever completing these articles or adding the sources to them. As long as he refuses to do that, we must assume that most of them are in fact copyvios or something very close to it just like the Westminster one I mentioned above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

You warned me about the 3RR rule. Please do not assume that 'the majority must be right', and please check the situation carefully. I think this warning is unbased (it would not be my 3rd revert), and I will give you a presentation of things, how I see them, of all edits since I entered the scene some days ago, in chronological order.

  • [3] This was my first change during the last days. It was a merger discussed long ago, in fact so long, that it has already been moved to the archive. One comment was given, one user approved the change. I think I have waited long enough to implement it now.
  • [4] I reverted a change to a section I once wrote (long ago), since the change introduced several inaccuracies. I further wrote in detail an extensive comment on the discussion page and an explanation of the inaccuracies.
  • [5] In a completely unspecified fashion, User:Mikkerpikker reverts both edits as "rv pov". What does he mean?
  • [6] I could only guess what he means, so I undid his change.
  • [7] Because I am not going to go into an edit war, I am immediately editing the version, giving a shot to nothing about what he considers (how can I know from "rv pov" and no follow-up on the discussion page?) as POV. It cannot be the "Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution" thing since it was cleared on the talk page before I joined with the first edit above (and some time ago, I wrote to the organization and they say, no, it's not a mistake, it's intended to use the former term where the latter term would normally be used). I assumed reverting the merger was a mistake, and was not supposed to be included in "rv pov". So it can only be the claim that it is biased. I removed this claim with the edit. This is a unique version not present before. Note that I give extensive edit comments as I go on.
  • [8] User:Roland Deschain reverts my change, claiming "rv: three editors have objected to your change. Make your case in talk". Not only is this version unique and has not even been touched by any other editor, I also did give my arguments on talk. In fact, these arguments, as mentioned above, plus a minor fix by myself, are the two most recent edits on talk, and are still the only edits on the discussion page since September 10. Note he again reverted all changes.
  • [9] Since the revert seems to be based simply on false assumptions, I undid it. From current sitation, this is my first revert, since the edited version was unique.
  • [10] User:Kasreyn claims "Incorrect. In being reverted, your change has been rejected by four different editors now. Please open a discussion of your intended changes on the talk page." again I was only reverted once, and this one revert was "because the other three editors objected" although the version was unique. Ah, and did I already mention that I "open[ed] a discussion of [my] intended changes on the talk page" already yesterday, and did not receive to date a follow up? So if he is saying "Incorrect" he is either mislead by trusting the comment of User:Roland Deschain, thinking a majority is against this version, or he has simply not checked the facts carefully.
  • Then I received your warning.

To show good faith, I am not going to revert once more. I hope you can give me advice on what to do. Nobody replies on the talk page and I am being threatened to be blocked if I revert once more, even though it would only be the second revert in my opinion. --Rtc 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved from talk page

(This is the only editing I made to your profile. Write me and tell me exactly what you think is wrong with the photo. I have an indgo coloured aura. THe photo belongs there. email redacted) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mycats (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Indigo children

I have reverted the IP socks (twice) and semi-protected the page. Vsmith 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks for the input on the Talk:Indigo children page. My thinking is the chap will be happy if he can put his picture on some page. I found a few more refs on the topic he was talking about and wrote up a stub (it is in my sandbox at present, User:TeaDrinker/Sandbox. You seem to have some experience dealing with pseudoscience articles, do you think this might be enough to take the heat off in the Indigo children article, and do you think it might create new problems? Thoughts or ideas? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL?

Dylan Avery was an almost straight text mirror, aside from redundant material (IE explaining what Loose Change is) followed by a redirect. Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas received similar treatments, but sans redirects as I did not want to interrupt their AfD process. As for the GFDL, I am uncertain what aspects of it would apply or limit us here. All content merged was original Wikipedia editor content to my knowledge.--Rosicrucian 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but under the GFDL we need to keep records of what was contributed by whom (that is why we normally merge and then make a redirect). Quoting from WP:MM "Merging should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and are sometimes helpful. Other websites may have made links to the old page title, so we will want to redirect incoming visitors to the merged page. We do not want people accidentally creating a new page under the old title, not knowing that the merged page exists. Redirects also show up in search results, helping people who might be looking under the "wrong" title to find the page that they are looking for." JoshuaZ 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a redirect in the case of the remaining two, but as I said I was uncertain and didn't want to disrupt the AfD.--Rosicrucian 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move America Forward Page

JoshuaZ: Tell you what, instead of threatening me with Wikipedia ordinance violations, how about I let you and FeloniousMonk decide how Move America Forward will be portrayed on your website. I learned long ago that I have no ability to get verifiable information posted if one or more editor/administrator does not agree with the organization or issue involved.

I posted a fair accounting of MAF that included FeloniousMonks criticisms of the group, but also put in the legitimate good work the organization has done. You've made it clear you don't want me to have the ability to have that side of the story told.

So, it's the weekend, I'm done watching FeloniousMonk stonewall me. I'm not going to fret over things I can't change but will find another more constructive way to address the bias displayed. Thanks for your time and have a nice weekend.

[edit] David Loren Cunningham

The David Loren Cunningham is going to need some watching. A new user has decided that a yahoo.com column is not an acceptable source. More strangely, he posted uncited press releases that deny things not claimed. Arbusto 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chebyshev function

Joshua, do you know anything about the Chebyshev theta function? We discussed odd perfect numbers about a year ago by email, so I figured this would be your field. I left some questions on Talk:Chebyshev function#Asymptotics—if you have any sources I can look up I'd appreciate that, and doubly if you actually know some asymptotic estimates. In any case the article could use this information once it's found, so it's not 'just' a personal quest.

Ireland & Rossen has the (trival) bound \vartheta(x)\le\pi(x)\log x (p. 25) but doesn't mention the problem further as far as I can see.

In any case, thanks for your time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [11]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [12] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution review

I was just agreeing that, like most ID related articles on Wikipedia, one can see a clear implied meaning of "There is no challenge to Evolution, and ID'ers are all liars" throughout much of the articles, generally through extensive negative referencing. I don't agree that there isn't a a challenge, because academically motivated or not it sort of exists anyway, but I don't see how it would make IDer's annoyed for me to say that, i'm just saying that's how most Wiki articles on the subject tend to be written. Homestarmy 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, don't all the creationism related articles mention ID in some fashion anyway, they always seem written to attack both of them every time the article can do it :/. Homestarmy 15:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PHDrillSergeant 3

I have answered the questions to the best of my ability. I appreciate that you have taken the time to ask me these for clarification, for I suppose it is true that I was a bit vague. Thank you. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis illegal ban

Thanks. I suppose this is a bit of a test re: exemption to the 3RR on a bio for a living person.64.230.114.80 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Kennedy

Heh, first Scienceapologist adds that thing, then you say something to me, I guess more people than I thought have Kennedy on their watchlist :) . Just out of curiosity though, I haven't really acquainted myself with WP:BIO much because it's a new policy, would that unsourced sentence of qualified as a problem? Homestarmy 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wal*Mart

Thanks for adding the link to the article to the movie, I knew we had the article, but I wasn't going to cry if we didn't link to it from the main wal*mart article. In all honesty I think all those anti-wal*mart groups should only be linked from the criticism article, as they really don't have anything to do with the main article. EnsRedShirt 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is the case. A complete removal of all such links may be creating POV fork issues and since the Walmart article in particular has an extensive history of whitewashing as long as we are reasonably within policy I'd lean towards erring on the side of including more critical links rather than fewer. JoshuaZ 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I wouldn't do anything like that before we reached an agreement, but I felt that a link directly to the movie's site was un-needed and hence why I was bold and removed it. ;) (But I think that overall the NPOV is better served by linking to them from the criticism article, and not the main one.. But that could just be me.) Again thank you for putting the link to the movie's wikipedia article. EnsRedShirt 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey while we are on the subject, some one just put the criticism article up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Wal-MartEnsRedShirt 04:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU commentary

On Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Evrik, I'm rather interested. I do the clerk job there, but you have the mistaken impression that its the informal RFCU clerk's responsiblity "comment" on what may be requests without merit. It is not, and as far as I've seen, anyone can make limited commentary (limited in the sense that huge lengthy discussion not take place in a request) on one. Don't let such things stop you from making what you feel to be genuinely important commentary about the request. --Kevin_b_er 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However, it seems useful to clarify when one is not acting in official capacity (especially since the reporting user seems to be somewhat new. On other boards such as AN and ANI prior to becoming an admin when I commented there users who were not very familiar with the system either a) developed the mistaken impression that I was an admin or b) in some cases accused me of "impersonating" an admin. I therefore find it prudent to clarify when I am not acting in any official capacity . JoshuaZ 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, but the beauty of it is that there is no official capacity to be had there, save for those with checkuser permission. Kevin_b_er 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Rather than try to address it point by point, I think I can give you a general feel for what's wrong with your essay - it's basically just a chronicle of how you feel about the issue. There's no real attempt to address the issue, but lots of Well, I wouldn't mind if small cities got deleted and the like. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia I don't give a flying fuck about but if they're verifiable and encyclopaedic, what's the rational for deletion (with notes like a)spam is not encyclopaedic and b) there are exceptions (i.e. POVFORKS))? A school article that's verifiable, encyclopaedic and otherwise not spam or the like doesn't violate any policies or guidelines. WilyD 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you feel better if I entitle it a rebuttal to Silensor's essay and ignored my feelings? That could easily be done. As to the claim that an article "verifiable, encyclopaedic and otherwise not spam or the like doesn't violate any policies or guidelines" that is to some extent precisely my issue- theese are not encyclopaedic by any reasonable defintion of the word. Thanks for the comment, I will attempt to tighten the essay up and make it not about my feelings and focus more on the logical problems with Silensor's essay. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So what do you feel about the essay as it stands now? Also to make it clear, I'm not writing an essay arguing for the general deletion of schools, the essay is rebutting specific points in Silensor's essay not arguing for a general deletionist policy. JoshuaZ 21:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to read it tommorow. WilyD 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it some more thought (I've been pretty busy today) but 3 and 8 really fail to distinguish between a stub and a directory entry asserting that a stub is almost by definition a directory entry without any real reasoning. The Cherry Valley, Arkansas argument is basically just Stubs are not directory entries in illustrational form. An article title on an encyclopaedicly viable topic with one or two facts (say, where the school is, when it was founded, who the principal is, what its motto is, whatever) is a stub, not a directory. A directory would be if we made a series of such things (presumbly sortable/searchable) such that it couldn't expand, maybe a table of whatever. They may sometimes look a little like this since regularised inspections result in certain information always being available so usually included, but it is a subtle (and important) difference.
Additionally, merge is very different from delete. It's essentially a keep vote but just a comment on the style of keeping. I will say that as a rule I generally hate merging and find it to have all the aesthetic style of a puddle of sick, but sayings Let's making elementary schools of Prince Edward County, Ontario a single article from Cherry Valley Public School, Prince Edward County, Ontario and Picton Elementary School, Prince Edward County, Ontario is essentially a keep vote with a formatting comment. If this isn't clear, they still want to keep all the content of the article on a merge (or most) but move around the title (and probly even keep the name as a redirect). WilyD 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the interest from the creationist pages

Perhaps. But it still leaves unanswered the question of why I drew all this interest from a few people on a few specific pages and what they were told before (e.g.) they went to the AFD on John McGinness. It also leaves unanswered the question of why, with all the completely unsupported assertions and gross violations of WK:NOR on Noble controversies, mine, which is documented ad nausem, drew such special attention. If you check the history, what little documentation is there, e.g., on Herman Carr, I provided.

Also note that I am pushing Weiss et all and the Bell Labs workers case for the Nobel, not McGinness'. The fact that we were temporally between them and the Nobel winners is just an illustration of how badly this thing was messed up. I have a thing about "citation amnesia" and science fraud, which I is why I defended Raymond Damadian and ruffled all thos feathers, for which I am still paying the price. While there is no cabal on wikipedia, there are certainly cliques, and I seem to have run into one. Pproctor 02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 38 18 September 2006 About the Signpost
"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes In the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
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 05:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on meta

I have replied on my talk page. - Amgine 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page protect

Thanks for the heads up on the correct place to ask. Desertsky85451 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Gurary

You mentioned a couple of times in your edit summary abour BLP but that is for living people and he is dead.... --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Given the added content I'd still remove it as massively unsourced and not all NPOV. It is unacceptable to turn this article into a smear piece. JoshuaZ 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Creationism

The Portal, as it stands, reads very soberly, and I was not aware of the background, which you have communicated, so I just took it to be an examination of the idea the God created the world, as held by major religions — even if many people adjust this to also accommodate the scientific view. It's not really my field, although I am sympathetic to those who wish to provide information on such beliefs. I certainly agree with you that there are no grounds to put a joke template on it. I've put it on my watchlist. I wonder if people contributing to religious articles would participate if they knew of its existence. Tyrenius 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully earlier this week with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deucalionite, again

Hi, thanks for helping to keep an eye on Deucalionite. I notice he's persisting in creating new "treaty" stubs. Despite all requests, warnings, pleas and whatnot, he is apparently making a point of leaving them all without sources. Two or three more just today. As these are all on quite obscure topics they will be difficult to research and clean up for other people. I can imagine them lying around for ages in this state. Of course, he could just add the bibliographical references he's working from; he evidently has some and it would cost him half a minute to add them if he chose to. But he's apparently acting in wilful determination to make work more difficult for other users.

I don't know if you'd think more admin action on these grounds is necessary; as for myself, I have half a mind of bringing this to Arbcom if simple admin action isn't sufficient. I've now reached the point where I want an outright ban on him creating new articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He has claimed that he might react better to more polite requests. I'm going to try them for the next few days. If they don't work I am going to give him a long block. The step after that would be an indefinite with community approval. JoshuaZ 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your question on my talk page

Good morning. Gastrich cybersquatted the name in order to draw traffic from the maleboge.org discussion group and to his own, just as he had done with talkorigin (without the "s") and theinfidelguy (by adding the "the"). His aim is to prevent web surfers from seeing what he does not want them to see, so if they type "maleboge.com" instead of ".org," they'll see his discussion group. Of course, that group does not allow rebuttal, only Gastrich posts to it (as "Fraud Buster"), and pretty much everything he's put on the group has been exposed elsewhere, far and wide, as deliberate fabrications. It's comical because Gastrich has been exposed as "Fraud Buster" and, as a result, perpetuates fraud every time he pretends to "expose" fraud whenever he posts. "Fraud Buster" is a sock. We've got evidence for all of this, of course. Reggie Finely (the Infidel Guy) obtained a trademark for the name, "Infidel Guy," and apparently initiated an action that forced Gastrich to offer to sell the hijacked domain back to him, and that deal went through. We have also obtained the trademark for "maleboge" and we'll be pursuing our options, because we have good evidence that the "maleboge.com" name was obtained in bad faith. WarriorScribe 02:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was familiar with the talkorigin.org and the infidelguy incidents. I wasn't aware of this other example of it. Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 02:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
De nada. WarriorScribe 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Its morally wrong, but its not like people take him seriously and he has a following. After one time of reading such poorly written stuff who would go back to that website again? Arbusto 02:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to reply. Arbusto 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protecting Template:Christianity

Hello Joshua, I noticed your protection message, "semi-protecting since it is very rare that editing of this template is required" and was wondering on which part of Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy you were basing that upon? The template did not appear to be suffering from an inordinate amount of vandalism. One of the "series" of edits was just someone testing by adding "I love jesus". (→Netscott) 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not acting in accordance with that policy but within what I see as an emerging consensus that templates which are used in a wide variety of articles and rarely need editing should be semi or fully protected to guard against largescale vandalism (which has happened in at least 2 major templates such as most recently the Taxo template). While I don't always feel good about fully protecting, almost no new user or anon will have any reason to edit in template space so semi-protecting the templates little fall-out. JoshuaZ 15:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workload

I'm not really sure it's worthwhile to take everyone who comes to the right conclusion in AfD but uses some faulty criterion to task. I suspect you'd just get labelled a shit disturbed and told off. Plus, it'd be way too much work, easy. WilyD 13:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to some extent for 4 reasons 1)There is a need to have a real dialogue about these sorts of issues and it isn't going to happen as long as people just care about the results and . 2) even if something leads to the correct conclusion but for the wrong reasons in one case it might not do so in another (which the person may then attempt to do so) and will furthermore possibly influence others into considering the reasoning to be good 3) I'd rather have people disagreeing with me who are thinking things through than people agreeing with me out of lack of thought (at a minimum I'm more likely to learn something or have my thoughts stimulated that way). JoshuaZ 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a straightforward application of the finite effort theorem (i.e. I have a finite amount of effort to apply to Wikipedia, and there are other things that are more important/more fun) WilyD 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean you are one of those people who tries to have sensible priorities? I've heard of you people, never up to any good trying to be "reasonable" and "make the world a better place" and be "productive" Clearly you need to read WP:ICS...JoshuaZ 16:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomathematics

Pseudomathematics is up for deletion, and I thought you might have an opinion on keeping it vs. deleting it. I can't imagine why the article should be deleted, but I shan't attempt to sway you; your decision is your own. If you're not familiar with the article it's worth skimming at least before voting. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. ~~

[edit] Steve Herrell / Ice Cream

Hello,

Earlier this evening I rang Steve Herrell at his ice cream shop in Northamton, Massachusetts [001 413 586-9700]. We spoke for approx. 20 minutes and covered all of the information inlcuded in my edit. The Ben & Jerry's Wikipedia entry already credits Steve Herrell. He deserves to have his own Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure I am the person to do that. But I do assure you that all the info I have included is accurate. Also, I grew up in Boston and patronised Steve's Ice Cream from 1974 onwards. I now live in London.

I'm relieved that you have written to me as I had no idea what was happening to my edit.

Joshua [I assume],

I take your point, but wonder which aspects of the edit you refer to. For example, the bit about Ben & Jerry's is already verified in the Wik. entry on Ben & Jerry's. As I am based in London, it would be difficult for me to access certain journals, though this should be of some help:

http://www.rocheinternet.com/~herrells/design/?lv=6

Also:

http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/icecreamthroughtheages/

And more Google links:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=steve+herrell+1973&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I am a BBC journalist and am accustomed to objectivity in writing. I assure you that there is nothing dubious or controversial about my edit.

There is another matter which I hope you can help me with. I have been editing entries since the spring, with no problems until very recently, when a core few of ABBA fans claimed to refuse to believe that my description 'uplifting but melancholy sound' was a NPOV. I have put the issue down to one of control, which sadly obscures the more vital point involving a broadly accepted view about the true nature of the ABBA sound. One of the ABBA nerds actually threatened me with a Warning. I have been gobsmacked/amused/alarmed by the ABBA drama regarding the non-controversial and succinctly descriptive 'uplifting/melancholy'. Whom should I turn to?

I will read your response tomorrow. It is now 1am and time to retire.

Good night.

David

Thanks for all that input. I should point out that I am not a reporter for the BBC. I do nerdy journalisticky things for the BBC that are far more consistent with the work of Wikipedia.

You'll find that all those Steve Herrell quotes are kosher, assuming you can track some of them down. He is a humble, low-level entrepeneur who, true to a certain 60s ethos, never went corporate. Sadly, the person he sold the business to in 1977 eventually sold it to a much bigger company. I would not have added my edit had I not been so struck by the glaringness of the Steve's Ice Cream omission in the recent-history section of the Wikipedia ice cream page. By the way, I forgot to include the term 'home-made' in the edit. That is a must.

Also, the line

helped to kick-start a nationwide trend in producing small-scale, high-quality food items

should read

helped to kick-start a nationwide trend in small-scale production of high-quality food items

But I can always change that later.

As for ABBA, I did in actual fact provide links to music articles confirming the 'melancholy' business. One was from a British broadsheet newspaper. I have stuck to my guns on this issue because I am convinced that the words are objectively descriptive and because I sense that a core few users are personalising the entry in a way that is not helpful. Whom should I write to regarding this matter?

If you have citations for the ABBA thing, you may want to see WP:DR the first step is which is discussing the matter on the talk page (I haven't had time to see if that has happened yet) followed by making a request for comments or mediation. JoshuaZ 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against macroevolution

I can tell you are an avid creatonist. I am working on a new article (Evidence against macroevolution) to parallel the Evidence of evolution article. Right now, the work-in-progress can be found here. If you are interested, please feel free to contribute. Thanks! --Anthony5429 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am actually also not so much a creationist, but have recently just started researching the dispute online and found a lot of non-religious, strictly scientific support against macroevolution (also of course, much more relgiously-biased material). I've got a question you might know the answer to. How do I go about citing another WP article as a reference? --Anthony5429 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support and defense of my successful RFA. I really appreciated having someone watching my back. Thatcher131 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] orders are orders

(repost here as well) Goodness, I really seem to have offended you. Where I live it's a common saying "we've done away with befehl ist befehl you know", when someone is overapplying the rules. I really wasn't thinking in any overblown sense.

If you were involved or harmed or otherwise influenced by the period of 1933 to 1945 in history, then I sincerely apologise for opening old wounds.

"Orders are orders" is in fact a recurring philosophy in the west, used since at least the 19th century. I'm used to saying it in german because I live just an hour or two from the german border.

When applied to entire nations, the results of this philosophy are obviouly disasterous.

But lots of folks forget that it can also be applied on a much smaller scale, where it takes some time before the results become clear. Of course those results are somewhat less spectacular, though they can still be rather unpleasant.

Kim Bruning 12:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The apology is accepted. While I agree that blind application of rules is not a good thing, I think that in some cases an attempt to follow rules can be a plausible mitigating factor. I would argue that the real problem with befehl ist befehl is not that it isn't a valid mitigating factor but that for sufficiently repulsive crimes the resulting mitigation is so small as to be irrelevant. JoshuaZ 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is where people think they can absolve themselves of personal responsibility as long as they follow the rules.
You can prevent this from happening by always holding people personally responsible for the consequences of their actions, no matter what the rules say.
But that's abstract. In practice for wikipedia today, if you're (generic you) being mean to someone because you think the rules say so, you should still be blocked, because you're also supposed to "not be a WP:DICK" :-). Kim Bruning 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question on Tony

What are you referring to when you say "borderline wheel-warring"? Thanks. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was referring to the series of edits to WP:PI summarized roughly here [13]. The final blanking and protection while not technically wheelwarring seemed to be close to if not outright gaming his 1RR hence "borderline." JoshuaZ 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Halo's RfA

JoshuaZ...
Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support.
Thank you, JoshuaZ, for your support in my RfA. As someone that I admire, it meant a lot.
Yours, Thε Halo Θ

[edit] Thanks

Just thanking you for fixing my Talk page. --BCSWowbagger 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For the unblock. Would it alright if I simply added my note of the previous AfD inside of my own comment on the existing Afd, editing my initial post there (for closing admin review, et al)? · XP · 04:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask someone else that's participated on that AfD to do it. · XP · 04:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also, forgot to ask

He seemed to be especially upset about quoting/drawing attention to the comment he made and later redacted where he stated he would delete the article regardless of outcome on the AfD. Is that improper in some cases to not link to/quote users? I noticed on places like AN/I, AN, RfCs, ArbCom, etc. that people constantly do this, so I was a bit flustered by his remarks on that note. · XP · 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it, I'll drop that point until/if it ever hypothetically gets to that stage. · XP · 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

It is (or should be, it might have been changed) a philosopher's template, indicating philosophers influenced by Rand. It would probably be better to have a separate section for others Rand influenced. LaszloWalrus 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hey Joshua, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] super quick question

I noticed there are national, and regional noticeboards. I tried searching for notice boards related to specific subsections or topics, specifically curious for any kinds of notice boards related to computer science and military history. Is that sort of thing limited to community portals? The only "topic" related notice board I could find was this one. · XP · 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review Stuffing?

Hello, JoshuaZ. I've never run into this problem before but recently noticed this. The user Kappa appears recently to have gone through some list of Wikipedians and polled them on their talk page to go be heard at the Deletion Review for Finger Lakes Christian School. I was under the impression that this was not only discouraged but contrary to policy as far as issues of consensus such as deletion reviews go. If you could let me know your opinion on the matter, I would appreciate it. The reason, by the way, that I came to you is that you were the first Administrator I found expressing their opinion on that page. By any means, thank you, and happy editing. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I wanted to aks your opinion on something. JzG, who has endorsed the deletion of the article in question, has made a plea of sorts to the Wikipedia-En mailing list. [14] Should we be discounting the remarks of those who came to the review by way of this thread? I should think not, and don't see any point of discrediting the comments by those who have been notified by Kappa as well. Silensor 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a certain difference between votes that were solicited from people witht he expectation that they might be supportive of one position or the other, as opposed to a message to a wider audience like the mailing list, where there is no guarantee that people will agree with you (that said, I don't think that Guy's message was a good idea either). Guettarda 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That is fair enough. My point is that I do not think we should be discouraging conversation. Personally I don't have a problem with either form, and had I not been aware of this discussion I surely would have hoped someone like Kappa would have notified me so that I could comment accordingly. Kappa is a long term and good faith contributor to this project, I think we can all agree, so there is no point in accusing him of "vote stacking". If you leave me a message on my talk page, send me a private email, or post to a mailing list, I will review the matter and make my own decisions. Silensor 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not acceptable to let you know with the aim that you are much more likely to have an opinion one way than the other. It would be just as innappropriate for someone to email me on a school AfD knowing that I am more likely than not to argue for deletion. JoshuaZ 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If it were up to me (be thankful it isn't!) engaging in AfD and similar discussions would be a Wikipedia civic duty, akin to jury duty, in order to bring in fresh and thoughtful commentary to these stagnating circular debates.  :-( Silensor 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with that at two levels- 1) wikis by nature work well when people do whatever they want not forcing people into any duties. 2) If Kappa had for example put a neutraly phrased note that the village pump there wouldn't be any issue. The issue is that this was a) very non-neutrally phrased and b) aimed specifically to get inclusionist wikipedians. I do however agree that the school discussions are getting somewhat stale as of late. JoshuaZ 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate and annoying

Far more inappropriate and annoying than the spam "come save my about-to-be-deleted article" messages on my user page was your note "reminding" me not to participate in such things. You, my friend, suffer deeply from Wiki Arrogance. Grow up. --AStanhope 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, AStan. Attack the argument, not the method used to bring it to the table. Not doing so implies weakness (read: WRONGNESS!!!) in the face of the argument itself. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. None of you are adding new arguments you are just chiming in with you agreement with the one's already cited. This is a an attempt to give a false appearance of consensus which is not a representative sample of the Wikipedia community by any standard. This is votestacking pure and simple and is has a long standing precedent of being completely and totally unacceptable on Wiki. JoshuaZ 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, a total failure to address the argument. Nobody cares if it's stacking or not except for the Admins and only if the issue is being defended vigorously against something they did. Once again from the top: Attack the argument, not the method used to bring it to the table. E. Sn0 =31337= 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ is right, in my opinion. A neutrally-worded appeal in a public forum would have been appropriate. Going through the category at "Inclusionist Wikipedians" and leaving a heartfelt sobby message on everyone's talk page was miles beyond inappropriate, however, and I can't let attempts to justify it go unpointed-out. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ was NOT right to take the time to scold ME, the recipient of one of these appeals. I've received plenty of such appeals and have not responded to most of them. As an "inclusionist," I genuinely agreed with the apparent consensus to undelete the one for which I was spammed. Yes - the spamming sucks, but JoshuaZ's self-righteous self-importance was frankly shameful and embarrassing. Worse than the spamming, imo. Lame. Seriously. --AStanhope 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
May I tentatively suggest that this be divided into two topics? One of which was whether I should have sent that reminder note to Astan and two whether E. Sn0 has a valid point. As to Astan's Astan is probably correct and my comment was uneccesary and could be interpreted as condescending. For that I apologize. To the second issue, this in no way alters the accuracy of my and Kuzaar's comments to E. Sn0. JoshuaZ 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm finished complaining. You're clearly a "good" Wikipedian and contribute a great deal. Try to keep that big head of yours in check the next time around. See you around! --AStanhope 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My retraction in DRV

After I added my vote, I saw that there was an offer to overhaul the article. As I know nothing about the article or its contents (or anything about the school), I decided to wait it out and see if such a promise can be carried through. However, I am still leaning towards oppose, and I am appalled by the votestacking antics of Kappa. --physicq210 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate any attempts to persuade me to reinstate my vote. And no, my comment was not sarcastic. --physicq210 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have seen the article in your sandbox (thanks, by the way!), I plan to reinstate my vote. I can no longer see how this school can fit the definitions of notability. --physicq210 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kappa talk page

Hi. I happen to have the Kappa talk page on my watchlist (after I complained about what I felt was a useless deprod). I just wanted to offer a kind word of advice. I think you are right to call him out for internal spamming but you're losing your cool and I don't think any good will come out of that particular exchange. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 39 25 September 2006 About the Signpost
Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of block on me

I don't wish to wikilawyer, but I have reexamined my edits and I see that the block you gave me for a 3RR violation, was a bad block. I made three reverts of the same material and one of completely different material.[15]. I even checked the actual editing history of the page, and I never violated 3RR. I suppose I have a right to be further tweaked about this issue as the block you gave me was 12 hours after the report had been filed and I had been offline anyway for close to 10 hours. I recognize that you reverted your block, and I appreciate that, but this block will show up on my logs forever. Lastly, the person who reported the "violation" actually did violate 3RR not only on that page but on another one on the same day. as I posted on the 3RR report, yet he was only blocked for the same amount of time I was. I recognize that you were acting in good faith and I know you are a good admin and I do respect your work, but what can be done about this? I suppose I shouldn't worry about it, but, well, the logs don't lie and I don't need misconstrued ammo being used as a weapon against me. Other matters about this situation we have already discussed and I would like you to know that further information regarding that correspondence is looking like I may be correct. I'm not going to take this to an Rfc or anything like that, I suppose I would just like an apology but if that isn't what you want to do, I will have to just try and write this off.--MONGO 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Len Tower article, sources

Greetings. I read your comment on the first AfD for Leonard H. Tower Jr. expressing a potential interest for the article, should there be sources showing notability. I have found and cited some sources which I believe you might find relevant; they are cited in the second AfD, in this comment by myself. Capi 13:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...the block issue

I don't mean to or wish to inflate a previous fire, but based on MONGO's request, if he has a short, 1 second note appended to his, I ask that you review the edits he cited for me in turn if possible. My Jone's edits consisted of one edit, then 48+ hours later, 3 more edits, which he framed as a 3rr violation. On the AfD--which was the basis of my initial 3rr report--I had added a note/procedural comment to the AfD, simply drawing attention to the existance of the previous AfD for all viewers. You mentioned to MONGO that this was standard, and AfD procedures also say it is not allowed to refactor/edit others' comments. MONGO's edits were to remove my edit drawing attention to the previous AfD. Mine were to restore them, per AfD policy. As I mentioned on the 3rr report, I wouldn't complain if I were blocked in turn, and I am fine with that--but I would also ask for similar consideration, if MONGO receives that 1 second note. Also, I think my interpretation of this as described here is correct, for your consideration. It might be more appropriate for neither of us to receive such a note. · XP · 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, specifically, this was my Jones' editing:

Does the initial insertion of the word count toward the 3rr? If so, then I did violate there, on that article. However, I think that my undoing MONGO's removal of my entry on the AfD (as no one is supposed to edit/refactor others' entries on AfD unless it's a policy violation that is entered) was a 3rr in and of itself--I thought edits to correct policy vios were not? I hate to bring all this up but I'd genuinely appreciate policy clarification from an experienced admin such as yourself. Thanks again for your help. · XP · 14:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but on the afd, one of the reverts you reported that I had done was to re-remove a comment that I had made and removed myself that you had re-added against my wishes to do so, obviously. The reverts you did as I reported on the afd at 3RR were "clean" 4RR, as was the Steven Jones violation of 3RR you did since you are working on the almost exact same wording.--MONGO 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'd prefer for us to just end this, to move on to building the encyclopedia. I'll grudgingly agree that the Jones was in all likelihood a vio, but I'll ask that you also agree that the WTC Collapse AfD on you was--as Joshua mentioned, it's standard to add links to other AfDs, and you removed those comments from me; you can't refactor out/remove others' comments on AfD unless it's a policy violation such as a personal attack; and my quoting of your obliviated text (which I'll readily admit was more than a bit brusque) was also allowed under policy--you can quote anything in edit histories as long as the content itself doesn't violate policy. All the things you removed from me that I readded, I was thus permitted per policy to readd. Joshua can correct me if my reading of the policies are off center, but I'd prefer for us both to either move on, and leave the logs as they are (a stray short term 3rr seems like a pretty minor scribble, I suppose, on our logs), or for Josh to drop an addition 10 second block note on both of us. Either way, good luck on the AfD. · XP · 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're a rather newer editor, so I don't think you deserved a block for either incident since there had been some time since the report was filed and I never filed a seperate report for the Jones article. You actually didn't quote me the first time, you simply reposted the post that I had removed. There are also tools the developers have that remove the records of this type of thing. Sorry for using your talkpage up here, Josuha.--MONGO 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am going to add a one second block to both of you. The wording of XP's block will note that he was a new user and that the block should therefore not be given too much weight. The block for Mongo will note that 3RR did not technically occur for him. JoshuaZ 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's nice of you. Thanks.--MONGO 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Joshua! · XP · 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL concern with sandbox

Joshua, there may be some GFDL issues with your sandbox. I think this can be resolved if you clearly credit the contributors responsible for creating the article(s) you are mirroring there. Silensor 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated Thanks

Thanks for the welcome Joshua. I've been lurking here for a year or so, mostly making anonynous spelling corrections. I watched with interest the whole Schiavo flare up, but managed to stay out of it. Then I clumsily blundered into the Hovind quagmire... For now I think I'll just retreat to the sandbox, maybe try and do a photo update on Mill Ends Park. Thanks again! --DodgerDean 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Understand you're busy in "real life" but your last revert on Hovind may not have gone back far enough, Phiwum has been making some wholesale deletions... DodgerDean 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tbeatty block for BLP

This is to address your support for the block. I don't think you understood the sequence of event. 1. I made a comment on a talk page without a source 2. Tyrenius refactored it per policy (this was fine) 3. I then restated it with different wording and provided a source. 4. Tyrenius blcoked me for violating WP:BLP because he didn't believe my source was adequate.

I don't believe this is justified in any way. I can understand if I repeatedly made the same contribution and blatantly disregarded WP:BLP but this is not the case. I can name half a dozen admins that have done the exact same thing. This is the way wikipeida works. An unattributed opinion gets refactored, then a source is provided and it might get edited or changed but in no event should an editor be subject to blocking when they attempt to satisfy the WP:RS requirement. In no case should a second edit that provides a source to a refactored statement by grounds for a block. I would ask that you withdraw your support for that block.--Tbeatty 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has reviewed and commented specifically on this incident. Tyrenius 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foley

Given the nature of the scandal - and the fact that it'll be on the TV news tonight - I think it best if we keep it semiprotected for now. DS 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tau numbers

Is the statement

The equation GCD(n, x) = τ(n) has solutions only if n is a refactorable number.

an unsolved problem? PrimeFan 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Er. Very much no. My last edit must have put that line in the wrong place. I'll go fix it. Thanks for the heads up. JoshuaZ 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. PrimeFan 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New user messing with 50+ unaccredited schools

See these edits[16]. View user's history. Arbusto 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikitruth

>Wikitruth is in general highly inaccurate and filled with users who have been banned or hit by ArbCom restrictions for their repeated POV pushing and other forms of disruption ...Care to document that? Wyss 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd closure Donald M. Kendrick

Can you close Donald M. Kendrick, which has been open since the 23rd? I count 12 delete, 7 keep: the keep cite an article from a decade ago that call the subject "undistiguished". Arbusto 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin closed it berfore me. JoshuaZ 01:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 40 2 October 2006 About the Signpost
New speedy deletion criteria added News and notes
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell is Resysoping?

Re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Statement_by_JoshuaZ does that mean to be reinstanted as a sysop (admin)? I think it does. I think i will make a page on this term, which will quickly be put up for AfD. sigh.

Where is the juicy Carnildo "resysoping" you talk about? How can Rubberneckers and busy bodies like myself follow the converstation if you mention things that no one who is not involved in the argument would know about?

Thanks in advance. Happy wikiediting. Travb (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi joshuaZ. you wrote:
Could you explain what the point of the message on my talk page was? Also, please explain why you think that the Resysop article will be deleted soon (other than its own WP:POINTish element and the fact that it is a neologism with only 43 hits?). JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No point, other than I was trying to figure out what Resysoping meant. I guessed myself, I guess that I guess right?
RE: ReSysOp, I was being a bitter pessimist. I have had alot of articles deleted before, for what I felt where really pointless and often vindictive reasons.
I still wonder what you were talking about with Carnildo "resysoping".
The long and short of it: An admin emailed me the news about certain editors no longer editing, and refered to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano. I stared to read the article today, but I was unable to follow the entire debate, because I had no idea what or where Carnildo "resysoping" is. Therefore I emailed you.
I hope I answered all of your questions.
I have no idea what a neologism is, nor do I know what you mean by 43 hits? 43 google hits?
anyway, I hope I answered your questions, anymore please dont hesitate to message me. Happy wikiediting. Travb (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the explanation (scratching my head), I appreciate you taking the time to explain something so complex. Please don't be offended if my eyes glazed over a bit reading your explanation. I need to read the whole affair again, I got as far as you and stopped. It seems important, one admin says it may change wikipedia as we know it. (in not so many words) Anyway thanks again. Happy wikiediting.Travb (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ok JoshuaZ

You've been respectful about this and didn't act like a middle schooler so I'll let ya'll do what you want with the page.

BTW this name will eventualy be what the article is called I don't even have to bother to fight for it myself. grazon 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are right

Things are just moving too fast. Thanks for the heads up. Haiduc 03:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 3RR on Mark Foley scandal

Thanks for the diffs, but I made the report already. Hopefully the situation will be resolved soon. --Coredesat (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone gives you grief for the Foley page note I warned a IP in the same range on the same article the other day.[17] And even asked an admin to semi-protect it.[18] Arbusto 06:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report

Hi Josh, I did look at it, and was on the verge of blocking for 24 hours when I saw that another admin has blocked for a week, although he then did something called a "soft block," so I'm not sure what's happening. Take a look at the log. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it already. I got him mixed up with another editor I blocked tonight who was claiming immunity under BLP, even though he was the one adding the problematic material. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've sprotected Mark Foley scandal. Will look at the others. I think he's got dynamic IPs so a block might be pointless. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I meant I had sprotected Mark Foley. I see you beat me to it with the above, and by blocking the IP, which I was about to do too, so if he kicks up a fuss, I'll simply take over the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I blocked three editors for 3RR tonight who were all claiming exceptions under BLP (all wrongly), and I can't keep them straight in my mind. I keep accusing one of making the edits one of the others made. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riek Machar

An IP has been hitting that page for months and he's received six formal warnings and not a single block yet. Arbusto 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

24.26.178.121 did it again. Arbusto 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Twice more since my last edit. Arbusto 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Joshua is busy in real life

But not that busy! You caught that pretty quickly all things considered. How long did it last? 5 minutes? Sorry about messing around but i have been reading a biography of Darwin and the article annoyed the hell out of me. It wont happen again though so dont worry about it:)

[edit] just wondering

Hi...was I in error here [19]?Kukini 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I was and reverted myself. JoshuaZ 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuddle puddle

Yes, they used the term "Cuddle puddle". I'd never heard it before watching that episode of CSI. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 41 9 October 2006 About the Signpost
Interview with Board member Erik Möller Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] schools

Hi JoshuaZ,

As of this morning, I really am gonna do what I lamely have been saying I was gonna do. I'm not watching the Talk:Schools page anymore. Good luck!--Ling.Nut 11:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page deletion

Hi Joshua. Can you do me a favour and delete the redirect page Racewalking. i want to move Race walking to that page (including the history) but since the redirect is currently there i cannot do the move. Then I will change Race walking into a redirect to Racewalking. Or is there an easier way to just exchange their histories? David D. (Talk) 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. What exactly do you need me to do? JoshuaZ 14:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. i was hoping to avoid the speedy delete route but that might be the easiest. For your info i wanted to do the following. Move Race walking (and its history) to Racewalking. However, racewalking is already occupied by the redirect so I cannot make that move until the racewalking page is vacated (i.e. that redirect is deleted). i was hoping you could just delete that page. I'll send it to speedy delete and see if that works, but thanks. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually the problem isn't the redirect, it's the presence of non-trivial history on the destination page, which means that the destination page needs to be deleted to make way for the move. I've done the move. Guettarda 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for taking care of that Guettarda. JoshuaZ 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. That also explains why a similar move I had done a while back worked. I assume the redirect had no history in that case. Good to know for the future. Thanks again. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling IP

The same IP that was messing with the Diana Irey article is now playing games withme and Tupsharru, while not contributing to wikipedia.

Reported to the community.[20]

Time for a block or a semi-protect on the Murtha page. See the noticeboard for details. Arbusto 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on the IP's talk page. I'm not convinced that the level of removal justifies semi-protection. JoshuaZ 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please chase the full edit history before acting: For example, Arbusto had been insisting on a passage that claimed that John Murtha is “the soul and conscience of the military” he has now retreated to one that says that Bob Woodward said that John Murtha was “the heart and soul of the military”. 'Nuff said? —12.72.72.238 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A rather interesting discussion on an admin.'s talk with this IP.[21] Arbusto 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, interesting or not, I think that it has made clear who is or isn't trolling, and who is or isn't trying to continue warring. —12.72.72.229 17:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with deleting user talk page

Hi, I am attempting to vanish and have decided to no longer edit here. I would appreciate it if you could delete my user talk page. (m:Right to vanish) Thanks. DarKnEs5 WaRrí0r

User talk pages should not be deleted. Guettarda 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the policy here, Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F, User talk pages can be deleted if there is no policy violations that may need to be kept or if the user is leaving. Also m:Right to vanish states you can have your user talk page deleted if you are attempting to vanish. In addition, many editors here also had their user talk page deleted. Please see here for more details. Thanks. DarKnEs5 WaRrí0r

[edit] User:Ernham

Hello. I have opened up a Request for Comment on Ernham (Requests for comment/Ernham) I wondered if you could take a look to see if what I have written is accurate as it requires other users who have "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". My concern is the user's personal attacks. Mark83 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake sources

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary. What can be done about this user who has consistently done this to my afds? An admin. tried to deal with itwith the user, but the admin. is taking a break from wikipediaArbusto 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review

Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign your bloody posts

They aren't that dumb. •Jim62sch• 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Back of the dorm, 9:30.  ;) •Jim62sch• 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 42 16 October 2006 About the Signpost
Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China $100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the note - looks like it got introduced during an edit conflict - I fixed up the other issues as well --Trödel 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on my talk page

Since you are an admin, I assume you have a legit reason for removing a message on my talk page. Still, this is strange behavior. It's bad form to remove talk messages, and especially bad form to remove talk messages on other people's talk pages, is it not? Robert K S 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and spam is in the eye of the receiver. I can certify that the message was not spam, as I had been involved in the Scientist infobox discussions previously and was glad to receive a new notification of its progress. I am perfectly capable of deleting my own spam; it is not your place to delete messages on my talk page. Robert K S 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Henson

The external links and references on the same article. They meet WP:BIO. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Actually, I reverted the edits of 81.154.232.101, who was User:General_Nolledge evading his 3RR block: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:General_Nolledge_reported_by_User:Flex_.28Result:24hx2.29 Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might want to consider whether phrases like Ross likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers are encyclopedic, and comply with WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

Hi

I'm writing to you - and others - because you are one of several people who appears to have experienced the same thing as I have noticed and experienced.

Namely a pattern of vandalism by an anonymous user. The IP # is 66.229.10.64

See this user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.229.10.64

This user has been temporarily blocked several times. I notice that the pattern is the same.

The person doesn't seem to respond to polite community requests to engage in dialogue - or to desist from repeatedly making edits that several editors consider to be vandalism.

I am not that experienced in these matters but can there be an attempt made to block this user permanently? Or at least for a period of time so that the person gets a message about respecting the community. Thanks. Davidpatrick 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than a longer block I don't know what can be done. Judging from the editor's edit patterns I would almost guess that the editor has some sort of autism or something similar. JoshuaZ 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

I have posted some comments on my talk page in response to your comments on my talk page, if you are interested in responding to them. --ForbiddenWord 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account. SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts. SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks. SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism. Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's page

I was jut hoping to AGF, and give him the rope to hang himself if he's a troll. I have no idea who he is. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppets and treating cancer

A user is messing with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Noetic Sciences, a place that "studies on the efficacy of compassionate intention on healing in AIDS patients." Can you give him a warning? Arbusto 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the username and what precisely is the user doing? You may want to also consider adding a AfDanons tag. JoshuaZ 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeking keep votes from paranormal believers.[22] Arbusto 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on his talk page. I suggest you go through and note under each comment by a person who he spammed that came to the article that they came after he posted on their talk page. JoshuaZ 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 43 23 October 2006 About the Signpost
Report from the Finnish Wikipedia News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW

Hi Joshua,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time. I'm a bit busy until the this Friday but will be more than willing to help out then. JoshuaZ 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

To spare myself from any additional stress, I've decided not to engage with User:Street Scholar any further. I would appreciate your monitoring the situation (he's continuing to edit his talk page while blocked). Thank you for your offer. -- Merope 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I said I wasn't gonna respond, but that doesn't mean I ain't gonna look.  ;) Could you please explain why sexist comments (particularly sexist comments to women editors) constitute a personal attack on his talk page? I'm afraid that Crimsone and I, being accursed females, aren't carrying much weight with him. I'm also concerned that if this situation isn't squashed, he may start to disrupt WP. (Once the block expires, of course.) Thank you so much for your willingness to take over. -- Merope 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Schools Failed consensus?

Hi,

Did you give up on tagging Wikipedia_talk:Schools as Failed consensus? --Ling.Nut 12:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting a bit longer before I put the tag on. (I was hoping someone else might do it in the meantime since I'm not exactly unbiased in the matter). I might do it tonight if no one else has by then. JoshuaZ 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Even tho I have over 5K edits to Wikipedia, I'm still a newbie (or in some nebulous limbo between newbie and post-newbie). I'm not sure I have the exp. to warrant putting the tag on myself (do you have to be an admin?). BUT.. it seems that one side of the discussion has evaporated (thru exhaustion and frustration at the lack of willingness to compromise). If no one tags it Failed Consensus, then the people who remain will take that as validation of their POV. Thanks --Ling.Nut 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't have to be an admin, you could always do so yourself. There is very little that is only within the purview of admins- mainly deleting, blocking and protecting. In any event, I've added the template at this point since it doesn't look like this is going to get any consensus. JoshuaZ 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought I could do that...

Husond told me only admins could, but I could've sworn it didn't matter who did it... 69.145.123.171 Yes, I'm really an IP Friday, October 27, 2006, 01:47 (UTC) <-- On AOL

See here. --172.191.92.163 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, AOL sucks terribly. Freaking dynamic IPs... My static should be back in about a week. --172.191.92.163 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply IP removal from AIV

Hello. I did not tell the IP user that he could not remove blocked users from AIV, I just recommended that he did not do so. When I was patrolling recent changes with VandalProof I didn't think twice before reverting his edit, as it really looked like a vandal's work. He then explained that he was not a vandal, and I understood that he was trying to be helpful. But honestly it is my belief that such removals on AIV carried out by IP users are very prone to keep being reverted by other patrollers in the same fashion (which would cause some disruption). Furthermore, with VP2 we have a one-minute time limit for deeming an edit as either not-vandalism or vandalism (promptly reverting it). So there's no time to check if the users were in fact blocked in order to verify if it's a good edit. I found the whole situation very unorthodox. Were he a registered user, no immediate suspicions would arise. But as an IP... :-/ Anyway I hope that he didn't find me too bitter, it was not my intention to sound bossy. But, by the way, I presume that before you were an admin, you removed the blocked users from AIV as a registered user, is that right? Thank you for your feedback, I was actually hoping to get a second opinion about this situation. Regards.--Húsönd 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon vandal

Have you checked User talk:Kotzker? Please note that 'klulah' means 'curse' in the form of saying that a person should die. Please note the users 10 instances of plain vandalism on New Square, New York. Please note his comment in which he calls Kotzker a non-Jew (which is just about the biggest insult a Jew can make to another Jew). I cannot believe you are accusing ME of personal attacks here. I demand an apology. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lane End Primary School article

Hi since your delete comment on the above article I have expanded it and added information locally relevant. I would appreciate it if you would review the article and your comment. Thank you --Alex 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review!--Alex 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

No, I'm claiming that they're not notable because they are schools. Much as not all statues are noteable, but David_(Michelangelo) is. (or for that matter, neither are all Davids noteable). I would also note that school articles such as this are a good reason why WP:SCHOOL will never reach consensus. AKAF 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Most schools are not notable. School= not notable, except if notability is separately asserted. AKAF 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When to and when not to indef

user:Superkicker was an indef I think..... I changed it to such - not sure what your policy is on that kind of account but it seems like a vandalblock -- Tawker 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Er yeah. I don't know why I didn't indef him. Thanks for changing that. JoshuaZ 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ustye

Hi JoshuaZ, I just got a distressed note from Ustye about being block by you. I had a quick look, but I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure. I think he may have been accidentally block as collateral damage in an IP block? I'm just guessing, as there is no note on his page, and I can't see any controversial edits. Ustye is fairly new here, so I was hopping you would have a moment to have a look. (Would he be able to leave a note on my talk page if he was blocked?) Thanks for your help. --Bookandcoffee 20:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd opinion

Hi again JoshuaZ. If it's not too bothersome, could you please give me your opinion about an issue? There's this article Bajan that contains an endless glossary of Barbados slang. A quick glance on the nature of the words contained therein, and one might easily deem the list as rather inappropriate </euphemism>. Well, at least I did deem them as inappropriate and so I removed the list allegating WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The main contributor, and user Guettarda(!) apparently disagree with the removal and reinserted the list. I contacted Guettarda but he ignored my request for further comment. Thus, I am inclined to take this to WP:RFC. However I would rather prefer a second opinion, which I would much appreciate if you could provide. If you don't wish to get involved I will understand. Thanks anyway. Regards.--Húsönd 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what my opinion is on this matter. Having small lists (like this one) of words in some dialect or language seems to have a precedent of being acceptable (a dictionary by contrast seems to mean individual entries for each word or very long exhaustive lists) (see for example Farscape terminology). I would therefore thing that it is acceptable when it is part of a longer article. I would however, be more concerned about possible original research. JoshuaZ 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I have never seen so little achieved with so much effort. Guettarda 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution_controversy

Thanks for helping bring a little sense to the edit war - I had hoped to talk it out a bit to get rid of that awkward phrasing - but you're probably right that it's better to be preemptive here, and fix later. Adam Cuerden talk 23:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censor (single)

I just noticed you did not remove the Speedy Delete tag. Just making sure you agreed with its removal. Naufana : talk 03:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it merits speedy deletion, although a speedy redirecting might be in order. However, as a song on a notable album, I don't think it should be speedy deleted under notability criteria. JoshuaZ 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a consensus has not yet been reached concerning singles/songs articles. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (songs) seems to have more or less come to a halt. Personally, I think a notible musician makes for notible singles, but I am just a single user. I think that using the WP:MUSIC as the criteria for singles exemplifies Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. For example, Nine Inch Nails articles such as Burn (Nine Inch Nails song) and The Day the World Went Away would not qualify under what has been discussed in Notibility (songs) but I'm sure those articles are quite safe. Of course if Censor is found to be Speedy Redirect I will abide. Naufana : talk 03:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If there isn't consensus then speedy deleting is definitely not an option. JoshuaZ 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV for 70.35.202.217

Hi Joshua,

I reported User:70.35.202.217 on WP:AIV, and you removed the entry without blocking with the comment "seems to be a shared IP, has productive edits as well and hasn't edit in the last few hours. removing." I can't prove conclusively that it's not a shared or dynamic IP, but I'd point out that virtually all edits from this IP have been reverted as vandalism (including repeated similar edits to University of Missouri–Columbia which were made several weeks apart such as this edit on 10/28 and this edit on 9/24, along with several others having to do with the law school, and always from this exact IP as far as I can tell). Would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind taking another look. Thanks! Adam 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, basic decision still stands. For one, he hasn't been warned since October 11 and hasn't vandalized in a few hours. I suggest giving him a test3 if he returns and immediately taking it to AIV if he doesn't modify behavior after the test4. JoshuaZ 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Joshua

No disagreement here. I have been just doling a lot of those out lately. Want to be sure I am judicious with them. Best, Kukini 05:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye out...

...For 203.16.164.7; He's a repeat vandal, and this is the third time he's been blocked from Wikipedia.--Vercalos 07:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I awnsered your objections at RFC/Devilmaycares. Thanks for commenting! ---J.S (t|c) 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 2, Issue 44 30 October 2006 About the Signpost
Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed the failed consensus tag...

Did you see it has been removed? --Ling.Nut 13:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is presumably not the best for me to replace as I was the editor who placed it in the first place. You are more than welcome to readd the tag as far as I am concerned. JoshuaZ 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that -- in the name of some form of "Due Process" -- it should be left as it is for a few days. But I will re-tag it in a few days unless someone says something really new and constructive; unless some momentum in a positive direction occurs. --Ling.Nut 13:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bostoners

SORRY about the Boston correction (and I was till editing so accidentally repeated it) -- I know the Bostoner is significant in Israel, but technically there isn't a hasidic 'community' in Boston itself -- both the Bostoner and the Zviler Rebbes in Boston (and the late Tolna) have 'modern' communities rather than what is usually described as hasidic. --ChosidFrumBirth 19:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) To clarify -- I was talking about the City of Boston rather than the Bostoners. Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 71.162.24.251

Please don't take this as anything more than a suggestion, but perhaps a block of more than 24 hours might be in order? He's literally just come off a previous 24 hour lock and some of his edits have been, frankly, disgusting. Of course, you're the admin here, I just think maybe he deserves a slightly harder spanking? HalfShadow 01:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If he vandalized after this block it will move to a longer block, 48 hours or a week. I'm always a little worried about hitting longer blocks early in because it might be a dynamic IP. JoshuaZ 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just a thought. HalfShadow 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69.159.9.68

I suspect the user has created an actual account, is there anyway to check it up? The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcam --Cyktsui 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Spoofer and A Person Who Has Vandalized My Page (update)

I'm sorry but I've never run into trouble with users often on Wikipedia but this seems like I should report it. A user called Prussian Poet gal. (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has spoofed my name and vandalized my page. This user has not done so repeatedly as of yet but what is the proper course of action if they continue to do so?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen seems to have dealt with the matter. Impersonators should in general be idefinitely blocked as should vandal only accounts. This one seemed to hit both. JoshuaZ 07:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I just recently noticed the good work of Blnguyen. Thank you both.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. JoshuaZ 07:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm headed to bed. So you may need to find another admin to deal with any further socks. If it continues, you may want ask for your pages to be semi-protected but I dont think it's at that stage yet. JoshuaZ 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Luna was on the case but they sneaked in another episode last night while I and Luna were gone, here's the diff page.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The matter is finally resolved :)! Luna came in and implemented an "sprotect" on the page and the user is being dealt with.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

What's the standard procedure for dealing with it if the other guy violates 3RR? Is it OK for me to violate 3RR becuase he violated it? See what's happening on Super Bowl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs); the guys keeps removing information, and, despite my pleas, has failed to say why. I warned him because he's anon and may not have known. Thanks. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless another editors edits are vandalism or violate WP:BLP 3RR applies to you as well. Your best bet if they keep reverting after you have warned them is to put a note on the WP:3RRV board. I'd take a look myself but I'm about to head to bed. JoshuaZ 07:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation ...

You don't like the reference? Dan Watts 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

While some of them may make "information" claims it is by no means universal and the general objection to "macroevolution" has in fact little to do with the information claims. JoshuaZ 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
So you have references to support your position? Dan Watts 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy right now, I should be able to give you a reference by this evening (US East Coast Time) JoshuaZ 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive threat by user

Hi JoshuaZ, I have been editing a well-balanced and well documented article for Halloween which found consenuss (!) and I am under personal attack as well as direct threat by Weirdoactor who used personal attacks on his talk page after I asked him to discuss any chnages before deleting my article. There should be no place for highly agressive behaviour, threats and offensive language in the Wikipedia community. This is discouraging new members and the way Weirdoactor acted is scaring away people from editing. I don't want to spend my valuable free time being insulted and personally attacked. Please let me know if there are any ways Wikipdia has to protect its members from such attacks and discipline offenders .Caloon2000

Below I inserted my massage at Weirdoactors talk page and his response. Please let me know about any means to report unacceptable actions by users. Thanks ;-)

Hello Weirdoactor, please discuss any changes you make at the talk page. The topic has been discussed at lenght and a consensus has been formed which lead to a well balanced article. Specify, in what way you disagree with the content of the article before removing other peoples's text. Also, I ask you to revert the first level warning you misused. A misuse will not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines for using this template. Do not use it against the people who try to contribute valuebly to Wikipedia. Please read the discussion to this controversial issue at the talk page. This is a reasonable basis for everyone. Thanks. Caloon2000 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone who fell off the turnip truck last night, dude. You certainly know a lot of Wiki policy and lingo for a newbie. Methinks you are a meatpuppet, and I will report you as such to the proper authority. I calls them like I sees them; if you don't like that, difficult mammary. -- Weirdoactor 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chupple (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Sorry to bug you but this guy's being a pain in the rear end, could you ban him please? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting block errors. The developers were modifying the autoblock earlier so its presumably related to that. JoshuaZ 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks. I was starting to get worried there for minute, but thanks :) -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

The attacks being made at B. H. Carroll Theological Institute hand no sense and are getting out of hand. See the talk; you person posted "we don't know its not seeking accreditation" and another is making it personal. Arbusto 23:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falcon Studios speedy

Please take another look at this. The article is blatant advertising, it's just a minor rewrite of one of the company's ad pages. It's on the borderline between obvious plagiarism and copyvio and if I'd found the ad page yesterday I'd have mentioned it. It reads like a publicist went thorugh it and changed just enough words to make googling it for the same phrases hard.

http://www.falconstudios.com/shop/Route.do?code=FSINDEX_ABOUT

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. JoshuaZ 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to reconsider. Falcon is by far the dominant studio in gay pornography. It is deserving of an article. Some people believe that nothing the in the world of gay porn deserves an article on Wikipedia for reasons of prudishness, but they must be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored. Wolfowitz's points may be valid. I would be happy to work with you and him/her to re-write the article to address those concerns. The article should be saved because the subject is important, at least to a segment of the population, and not delted just because it is not written well. I think that the speedy deletion was the wrong way of handling this.

If you post the original text in a sandbox, I'll work on it. Thanks. Zeromacnoo 13:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JZ. I stand behind the comment that "Some people believe that nothing the in the world of gay porn deserves an article on Wikipedia for reasons of prudishness...." Those of us who have been working on these articles frequently have to defend them from certain people who just don't think that the subject matter is suitable for Wikipedia. I apologize for implying that that was the motivation behind your actions. I did not intend to make that implication. I accept that the deletion was undertaken for the reasons cited, and not for prudishness.

I continue to disagree that the reasons cited should have led to speedy deletion. Speedy deletion provides very little time to save a worthy article. I will work on the sandbox version, and will let you know when I am done, and ask for your consideration of it. Thanks again. Zeromacnoo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on this. I'm sorry not to thank you sooner, my kids & their kids have been visiting and I haven't had much chance to edit. Zeromacnoo, I nominated the article as a speedy because I thought it had crossed far over the line into commercial spam since it was just a minor rewrite of one of the company's advertising pages. At least veryclose to being a copyvio too. If I understand the new rules from WP:OFFICE, the current procedure is to speedy articles like this one, and if the subject is really notable somebody not related to the company will write a real article. Looks like that's what's you're doing and that's a good thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party picture on Hovind

Apologies, but that image flew into my head the minute I read about the outcome of the case. I'll be more bold, less impulsive in future. ;) Sockatume 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We should get a newer picture of Hovind. The one on that page is rather old. Arbusto 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any others that are public domain or GFDL. A request on talk.origins might produce one. We could always use his mug shots which are presumably fresh...JoshuaZ 04:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of religious articles, please review James Patrick Holding. Arbusto 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Request

Ok, will do. Now I better lock my laptop, in the event of snooping or hacking. Even my classmate created a page about me for Uncyclopedia. Lol. It got deleted after all. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry About Mistagging

Didn't really know what to do with it, tag-wise. Thanks for figuring it out! -WarthogDemon 06:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk help

Thanks for deleting that offensive exchange at the RD, I was going to make a request for that action at the WP:AN. For future reference could I have deleted that section or is that an admin only action?
Another inappropriate section (Full h) was deleted by one of its participants after I identified the anon vandal as 209.122.217.229 . I'm reposting my edit re the anon's edits here in case you feel that any further admin action is required in particular for the egregious act of forging an uninvolved user's sig (Jamesino) to one of his edits:
See what our busy troll has been up to: [23], [24], [25], [26] (with forged sig), and [27]. --hydnjo talk 03:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
--hydnjo talk 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning for the anon. In general, simply removing a section but leaving it in the history is something any user can do. JoshuaZ 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --hydnjo talk 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/User_talk%7EJoshuaZ_Archive004_f21b.html"