User talk:Sir james paul/page 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 You're back! 2 www.whyaretheydead.net 3 Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints 4 Heeeeeeeeeey buddy 5 Error 6 Re:I'm Back 7 AMA 8 Thanks a lot 9 You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page 10 Vandalism? 11 MartinBot 12 Re: Barnstar 13 Is/Is Not Vandalism 14 Jobs? 15 concernign the vandalism 16 D.T.D 17 Veterans of the First World War Who Died in 2000 18 Vandalism of John Paul II 19 A smile from you 20 Thanks! 21 What? 22 Re:Tools 23 You've got to be kidding! 24 Hi 25 Your edit to Evolution 26 Re:AMA 27 Your edits to Evolution (20 March 2007) 28 Three revert rule 29 Blocked 30 Please stop 31 Sri Anandamoyi Ma 32 Deleting Criticism of Islam?? 33 Re:Evolution 34 3RR at Evolution 35 Unblock 36 Second block 37 Re: Smile and Comment 38 consensus on intelligent design

[edit] You're back!

I noticed you were'nt around much; glad you're back! :) Thanks for wishing me a nice week, and for asking God to bless me. :) I hope you're back to normal and stress-free soon! · AO ^Talk 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're not as stressed anymore. Wikireligion was a tough nut; new wikis always are. Seven of Nine was right at wikikids, but I didn't stick around long enough to say how he was at religion. I did see his userpage comment though, and I don't think it should have been deleted, and a rule created against it. If it was as you say, the block could have been fair (for disruption). I don't think his best bet was to send e-mails to you; did you respond to any of them? · AO ^Talk 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't? (just kidding :) Well, life goes on eh? Some people just try to be mean, others are misinterpreted, and others—such as you—are just plain nice. Like it or not, that's the way it is. God bless you my friend. · AO ^Talk 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You still edit on religion? I thought you said you left. Anyways, don't pay too much attention to what he says; WP:TROLL might help. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!! :) · AO ^Talk 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then read Dante. ;) · AO ^Talk 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] www.whyaretheydead.net

I removed this link from Scientology per WP:EL. The site is little more than unverifiable original research suggesting some kind of conspiracy about Scientology-related deaths. And I am concerned that your adding the link was meant to push some kind of critical point-of-view regarding Scientology. If you really think it has encyclopedic value, suggest it at Talk:Scientology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This link provides nothing more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And your addition of http://scientology.bridgeinc.us/scientology/fot_3.html was also reverted again for violating WP:EL (link primarily to sell something). Please don't just add random links in order to try to provide "both sides" - links must fit within existing policies. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heeeeeeeeeey buddy

Yeah I saw you were inactive for a while. So how's your project going on? I'd be happy to join with that? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

FYI: this does not appear to be vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. My bad :) --James, La gloria è a dio 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:I'm Back

Hello Sir James Paul! It's nice to see that you are back and sharing your talents with the Wikipedia community. I hope you enjoyed your month long break. Lately, I've been editing some articles pertaining to Lent. Thanks for your message! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back and thanks for your message! The Rambling Man 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too! I too have been forced away for just over a month due to internet problems, so missed most of your absence, but it is, in any case, good to have you back. Martinp23 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Hi, I notice that you've taken on this AMA case, as per your comments at User talk:Notmyrealname 2. Could you please enter your name under Advocate Status in the case file, just to let other AMA members know you've taken the case? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault - I got it mixed up with an older case at User talk:Notmyrealname from December 2006. For some reason, the above talkpage was cited as relevant to the dispute, despite the fact that Notmyrealname and Notmyrealname 2 appear to be two different users. Thanks for the smile. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot

Dear Sir james paul, Thanks a lot for the lovely smile and great message..Wish you best of luck..Wish you all the strength, you need to fight those (amazingly) unfair critics of Christianity/Roman Catholicism and rest of vandals.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist    01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Removing spaces from your own comments is vandalism now? Please try not to bite the newcomers. Thanks – Qxz 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MartinBot

Thanks :). It's nice to have got the anti-vandal bots working again after a few months of absence. Martinp23 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I very much appreciate the thought. Have an excellent week yourself too :-) Will (aka Wimt) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is/Is Not Vandalism

Hi. I see you've found a new tool for reverting edits and warning users. Cool. It also seems to automatically label them as vandalism in the edit summary. Just be wary of accusing folks of vandalism if their edits aren't precisely that. Remember, some edits need to be reverted, but aren't necessarily vandalism. You might upset some people, especially the the newbies. Happy editing. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Case in point: [1]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That one I did not mark as vandalism and I did not warn the person. Thanks for bringing it up though :) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at your edit summary. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant to write mean to make instead of mark. I know I did actualy mark it as vandalism. :)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I urge you to again review the links above to help discern what is and is not vandalism. As you can see below, there seems to be an increased frequency of mis-labeled reverts. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will:) Thanks a lot for the advice:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I need to probably take a look at all the policies and guidlines again. It has been a while:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See yet another example below.Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jobs?

You said to post here if I wanted jobs?

[edit] concernign the vandalism

Im sorry about the vandalism, it wasn't done by me, but by my younger(11 yr old) brother. So i sincerly apoligize for it. I would liek to be a positive contributor to this site. once again, im sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.89.150 (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] D.T.D

Uh, okay, I'm really sorry about whatever I did...(I have no idea what you're talking about, though). So, could you just tell me what vandalism I did?? (Probably wasn't intentional.) "Love forever, love is free."

• Okay. Thanks for the smile, BTW. Happy editing, "Love forever, love is free."

• • I dunno, perhaps 3, 4 months? I do most of my RV-ing under an IP thingy...I'm too lazy to sign in most of the time. :) "Love forever, love is free."

• • • (You're right, it doesn't take that much time to log in. Fine. I'm overly lazy to an extent that people have to push me to get me to walk. :) ) Wikipedia's nice, actually. It's great for research, but it just makes me so mad to see people destroying pages that people put so much effort into.

"Love forever, love is free."

• • • • Whacking vandals is fun (it's more of a big hobby. Haha, I sound like I have no life...kidding.). I don't do that much article writing because I don't think that my writing is particulairly good. Besides, most articles here seem well written already (with the exception of some). "Love forever, love is free." PS: Uh...why does your smily have two parentheses? Just wondering...:))

• Tools? That'd be great. Where do you get this stuff anyways?

DTD

[edit] Veterans of the First World War Who Died in 2000

What was it, precisely, about the edits to this page that constituted vandalism?

[edit] Vandalism of John Paul II

What I wrote was not vandalism. It was an attempt at Neutral Point of View. 204.52.215.107 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the edit, I do agree that this was definitely not vandalism. I think you need to stop using the script. Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A smile from you

That did make my day. Thank you and I am sending a smile back to you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for stepping in and helping moderate the dispute over The Scientific Activist. Biochemnick 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Not sure if this is being done right, but...I go a message from you about adding personal input in the Rule of Rose section just recently. I'm completey at a loss as to what you are talking about-could you please tell me what edit you were referring to specifically and how it was doing so? -11:05 17 March 2007

Okay, I read your new message, but am again confused. What was said the link was in now way in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. As of now, both the fansite and the forum ARE the largest in existence-it is just stating a solid fact. I have seen other links with similiar wording that have not been deleted, so why should mine be? Also, it really is not breaking Wikipedia's policy, since me calling it the largest is not my personal opinion-it just is. Just as Alaska is the biggest US state. It's a fact that is in no way in conflict with the rules.

The only source I can think of is showing you the link to the only other RoR fansite out there, which is not even close to being completed or anywhere near as big as Rule of the Rose: http://www.forgotten-sanctuary.net/rose/

With all due respect, there is quite a lot of information on Wikipedia that says it is uncited. There is no way to cite that it is the biggest, but there are tons of other links that also have uncited information in them, but none have been removed. It really feels like I'm being picked on because of this. There is currently only one other known fansite out there, and it is smaller than Rule of the Rose. But why would there be an official citation of this?

[edit] Re:Tools

Hello Sir james paul! Thanks for thinking about me when you found out of the new tool: User scripts. I really appreciate it. I have added the new tool, although keeping some previous ones. Is it okay that I do so or will there be compatibility issues? Your reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've got to be kidding!

Per your request, I deleted the word "largest" from my link, but now it STILL keeps getting deleted and some other mod is threatening to block me, trying to claim it is spam, even though it isn't!67.163.193.239 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As discussed at great length on both your talk page and mine, this link fails WP:EL as it is essentially a personal site hosted on geocities, and it provides no encyclopedia information beyond what is found in the articles themselves. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most fan pages are not welcomed. If they were, every wikipedia article would have around 300 links. Your fansite isn't even an 'important' one, you don't get information from Sony about the game, you have a very limited bandwidth, and it doesn't even have a registered domain. Your page even adds any information about the topic. Pages like that are created all the time, and there's no need for them to be here.

-Pablo BsAs

That is a downright lie and you know it! I read those guidelines, and the site does NOT qualify as personal. It is not about me, nor does it have a resume or anything like that. It contains a LOT of information about the game-a LOT more than what is in the wikipedia article, including FAQs and in=depth anylasis on everying people have pointed out in the game.

[edit] Hi

Sorry for my short memory, I don't remember on what case this is. Fad (ix) 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK, I remember now, Paytakaran, I guess this means that I really need a wikibrake. Fad (ix) 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I could not prevent myself landing in the Evolution articles talkpage. Fad (ix) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Evolution

In what way was this edit [dif] representative of WP:NPOV? Did you spend any amount of time reading the discussion in the Talk:Evolution to find out how that particular canard of the Creationist crowd had been refuted months ago? Or that most of the more advanced of the creationist crowd doesn't even use that particular language any more? Moran, Laurence (1993). Evolution is a fact and theory. Retrieved on 2007-03-16.. Orangemarlin 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editors consider Evolution an undisputed fact in the scientific community and their editors and admins advocating this belief out numbers everyone else, so its pretty much impossible to refute anything. They also have a good investment in the intelligent design and have been able to label it 'junk science' and keep it because its also a fact. good luck! Wyatt 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate you here. Bring it to the various pages. But Evolution is a fact. And Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. Orangemarlin 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You've just proved my point. even user pages are corrupted. Wyatt 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have the rigt to believe in it and think it is true but it is not fact. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so many people have been taught bogus stuff for so long, and now theres some convincing laymen books that make very bold (and unfounded) statements about the 'fact of evolution', so now its got so much momentum, that i'm unsure how you could change anything. Wyatt 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to see something when wrong when you apply the philosophy of materialism to everything else. The world doesnt operate by materialism, but rather materialism is a pathology of the world that makes it worse rather than better. Gravity is still considered a theory, but you'll probably have an easier time calling gravity a 'theory' then evolution. Dawkins said in an BBC interview that to teach religion to children was child abuse and the main force of evil in the world is religion. These are concepts implied by natural selection and selfish gene, etc. Wyatt 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AMA

Thanks for coming back. Your assistance is needed. Regards, Grandmaster 06:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We're wrapping things up on Paytakarn. Shouldn't be long before complete resolution. The Transhumanist   19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Evolution (20 March 2007)

Please refrain from adding things to articles that have already been debated to death and refuted on the article talk page. If you continue, it may be considered vandalism. Thanks. illspirit|talk 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You did not refute that it is a theory. You can't. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've previously stated, read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, specifically the section titled Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. All major page moves must be discussed prior to moving, and your suggestion was rejected. illspirit|talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Evolution. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. illspirit|talk 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is not :unconstructive" for me to say that some do not believe that evolution is a fact. There is nothing wrong with it. Also it is crazy to say that what I am doing is vandalism! Look at all the work I have done fighting vandalism. All I want is for wikipedia to be the best it can be. Thanks:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Evolution. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert that once more, James, and you will get blocked. Please see all the various discussion messages and edit summaries disputing your attempted edits. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe in doing what is right, and not what is popular, no matter how much it hurts you. If this thing hurts my chances of becoming a admin, or even gets me blocked, I do not care. James, La gloria è a dio 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and comments like this are problematic and unhelpful. Don't accuse other editors of being atheists when you have no clue as to their philosophies, and don't threaten "a fight" for your "just cause". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• So wikipedia beingf NPOV is not a just cause? James, La gloria è a dio 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Based on your reaction to the warning, I have reported a breach of the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Okay. James, La gloria è a dio 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Evolution, and announcing your intent to continue to "fight". Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or engage in dispute resolution rather than engage in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. It is fine for you to block me for making a article more correct and for stating that doing what is right is more important than popularity. It is clear that wikipedia is extrmely biased when it comes to science articles. That is not right. What is even worse is that you allow peoples POV get in the way of articles being as accurate as they can. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. To not allow that to get into the article is far from NPOV. You guys preach that all articles should be NPOV, yet you encourage POV. Also, I do not regret doing what I did and getting blocked. You guys are just hurting yourselves. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You were not blocked for the content of your edits, you were blocked for the manner in which you were making them. If it becomes clear that your edits do not have consensus, it's time to stop and talk to those who disagree, or ask for a wider range of opinion, not to engage in an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please discuss article moves prior to making them. Especially for major articles, you absolutely must obtain a consensus prior to moving the article. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I care about the accuracy of the encyclopedia. I am a strong believer in NPOV. Someones POV never should get in the way of the accuracy of articles. I do not mind if the article Evolution stays in the same place but what I do care about is that it is stated that Evolution is a theory. I would just like to let you know I believe that Evolution is very much possible and in some aspects thing do evolve but it is still a theory. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to think that you alone can decide what is neutral and what is not. You must discuss these changes to article titles prior to making them. I am not interested in whether or not you accept evolution or any other area of science. You seem to misunderstand the scientific usage of terms like fact and theory. Please consider reading the FAQ and Evolution as theory and fact for further explanation before you propose other changes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Anandamoyi Ma

The article on Sri Anandamoyi Ma is in serious shambles. Help wanted. Aditya Kabir 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Criticism of Islam??

Your suggestion that the article Criticism of Islam should be deleted argues that "It really is not right to have a entire article with Criticism of anything on it." Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire notion of neutral point of view is based on articles "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Thus, many articles contain "Criticism" sections to provide space for counter viewpoints on the topic - and when those sections get too large, they are often broken off into entirely separate articles. Please do not continue down this path. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see what you are saying. Just to let you know I am perfectly fine with having a section on critisism but I just do not see the need for a entire article. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is not a POV fork (which this example isn't), splitting an article is acceptable and commonplace. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Evolution

Dear Sir james paul, I've added my comments on the Evolution talk page. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at Evolution

Consider this your only warning that you are, once again, nearing a 3RR violation at evolution. Discuss, don't edit war. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also I am talking about it. James, La gloria è a dio 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)\

The three-revert rule represents the limit of acceptable behavior; it does not entitle editors to make repeated reverts. If you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked from editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking about it on the talk page. I am not going to break the 3RR rule. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::As noted above, 3RR is not a "right", and if your edits continue to be disruptive - like this one at Intelligent design - you will likely be blocked whether or not 3RR has been violated. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." This is from Ignore all Rules. According to this policy I can ignore a policy if it is keeping my from improving wikipedia. That means that I can break 3RR if I am adding back accurate, sourced info. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

[edit] Second block

I have temporarily blocked you from editing. This is due to your persistent edit-warring, and in particular, a three-revert rule violation at Evolution. You may expect block lengths to increase if you continue this behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As requested in your original block request above, "Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." Your unblock request was denied. If you continue to place new requests, you will lose the privilege of being able to edit this page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Smile and Comment

Keeping Wikipedia neutral is a worthy goal, but it increasingly seems you are promoting your specific view on the way the article should read. Couching your activism under the guise of promoting a neutral point of view will not make it any less unacceptable. I also note that it only took fifteen minutes after you stated to me "I am not going to break 3RR" for you to break it. Honesty does not seem to be a quality you have embraced. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have a right to think that but I honestly care about wikipedia articles being NPOV. I am not doing this because of any personal beliefs. Have a nice week and god bless:) James, La gloria è a dio 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consensus on intelligent design

you've done a good job at point out that the ID article is not the consensus of the editors and that the ID intro is not NPOV. i liked the new intro, but still would like to see 'junk science' removed. talking to admins may help your case, rather than suffering from 3RR blocks Wyatt 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I do not feel I have done a great job at it but thanks anyway:) I feel as if you have done more to try to make the science articles NPOV than I have. My block will be over at around 11 pm ET. See you then:) --James, La gloria è a dio 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)