User talk:^^James^^

/archive1

^^James^^ 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive page
I have moved your talk archive out of the main namespace and deleted the redirect at ^^James^^/archive1. If you have questions about that, please ask on my talk page. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Thanks. ^^James^^ 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR block
I have blocked you for a fourth revert at Acharya S. There is no 'entitlement' to a fourth revert, even if the 24 hours are up. You have been engaged in sterile edit warring at this article long enough. Bear in mind that policies here are interpreted in the spirit, not just the letter. Your block is for 24 hours.

Charles Matthews 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * AJA continually reverts with stated intention not to talk it over, and with continued uncivility directed at myself and others. Why you "appreciate" such efforts is beyond me. Considering his refusal to discuss on the talk page, I think your strict interpretation of policy in this instance is a bit much.  ^^James^^ 23:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken this up on Charles Matthews talk page but have had no luck. I should warn you against pursuing this yourself after the block as I have never seen a case like this where the user with a problem actually came off well. At worst you will get blocked again for trouble making and at best you will be told not to waste everyone's time. Depressing but true.


 * I'm also taking this up at 3rr as A.J.A. got away with it by reverting us both with one blow - thus saving his "allowance". This is a terrible situation and I'm appauled by all of this. However I'm also getting increasing disillusioned with the ability of the admins to police themselves. Charles Matthews is on the arbcom so you will win no friends by fighting this and I'm sure I won't do too well by posting this.


 * If you wish to try your luck you can post on your talk page and another admin will look at the block. Since this has not been logged at WP:AN/3RR as it should have been no one else has had a chance to comment (I'm just watching the Acharya page as I've croosed swords with A.J.A. before and saw a message about your block). Be warned though - this may result in the block being lengthened.  Sophia  13:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Sophia, thanks for your comments. My concern about the block is the risk of being tarred a 'problem user' over time due to a rather strict and selective application of policy. I won't fight this because it is technically a legal block. Still, considering that AJA refuses to discuss on the talk page while reverting a number of peoples work, I do think blocking me in this instance is questionable. OTOH, the Acharya S edit war has been going on for many months, and Charles has applied the 3RR strictly against others in the past, so I don't feel so bad. ^^James^^ 19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen all this and am appalled. No wonder A.J.A. behaves as he does - his bad behaviour is being ignored and the way cleared for him. Charles Matthews obviously doesn't understand that in wikipedia all editors are equal so if what he feels is an attack against him justifies a ban then so should calling other editors "vandals". He also doesn't seem to have got the hang of the idea that if you are involved you should not issue the ban yourself unless the article space is in danger which it clearly is not in this case. I will take it up with him directly at the risk of being accused of showing "bad faith". Sophia 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He's actually User:skullnboner and there is a history with him at the Acharya page I think. I've asked Charles Matthews to log this one on WP:ANI as he should have done with your block too so I'm waiting for him to do that so that this discussion can take place in public. If he fails to log it then I will so I'll let you know when and where to comment if you wish to. Be warned as I don't expect this to go too well. Sophia  18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars
I am leaving the same message for you and for A.J.A.

Looking at the article's history, in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If either of you revert the article Acharya S again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.

I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: There seems to be some confusion&mdash;to clarify, if a revert occurs, I would only block the party that reverts the article. It was drawn to my attention that the wording of my statement was unclear. I don't want either of you to mistakenly believe that I would block both of you in the event that only of you reverts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert articles without comment in the edit summary. Using just "RV" leaves people wondering what's been reverted, and why.  Thanks for discussing the issue on the talk page, though.  Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no prob. ^^James^^ 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

antiscience
A clarification about my changes to antiscience: the changes are negotiable, but WP:NPOV is not. In other words, the outcome of the negotiation must continue to conform to WP:NPOV. Al 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I get it. ^^James^^ 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Al
I have posted an outside view as I can't believe they consider the final straw leading to Arbcom calling someone an "edit warrior". If Al gets banned I'm going too as this place really is beginning to resemble the Stanford Prison Experiment. To be quite honest it takes people like Al to rock the cozy boat a little, stretch the bounds of understanding of some limited editors and let people like me make what is then seen as reasonable edits that bring the article closer to NPOV. With Al gone I'll be faced with either wasting my time or becoming more bolshy myself which does not sit very well with my British/avoid conflict at all costs mentality. Sophia 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are spot on which is why you know it's ultimately pointless. Shifting the ground on entrenched editors with strong POV's is as you say a dirty job and I dislike conflict and don't see why I should do it for a hobby. Al steps up to the mark in a way I admire (although in the past his methods sometimes left a lot to be desired) and don't have the stomach to emulate. I'd rather be gone than effectively sign my name to heavily partisan articles. Sophia  21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: G33
Thanks, I'm not going to get invloved in it since it seems like nothing more than a stupid wheel war. Thanks for bringing AN:I to my attention though. -- Pilotguy (roger that) 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Erich Fromm

^^James^^, I borrowed the Erich Fromm quote from your page, hope you don't mind.--Tomtom9041 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

End of drama
Sorry for my behavior, I should have waited before I responded. I really have no ill will against Acharya S. or her followers. As far as placing a link to further information, my website is not a 'personal' website or blog. As an item clearly labeled as commentary, it does not belong on her wikipedia entry. However, I would find it appropriate to include it on James Churchward's page, right next to the entry that says he influenced her.Jchurchward (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S
Hey, cool, thanks for pointing that out. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acharya S
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ Myth
Hi you were active on the Christ Myth page during the month of december. It would be helpful to everyone if you indicated how you felt the conversation went in December Talk:Christ_myth_theory. Thanks in advance jbolden1517Talk 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I would say the "fun" is worse than ever. It is so hostile there - Eugeneacurry has basically said that he will start dispute resolution against me - and I've only been back 3 days! Never been threatened with that one before. You should look at the course he links to as justification for the book he wants to use as a source. The joke is it is exploring the evidence for a historical jesus!!! Own goal or what ;-) My biggest problem is time as I'm full on at the moment so hopefully we will get this sorted promptly. Sophia♫ 09:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the babies - you've been pretty busy these last few years! Mine are all growing up (20,17,14!!) but I' working full time and doing voluntary work as well so I have virtually no time for wiki these days. It's a bit scary how ferocious it has become and certain editors seem to know their way round the rules very well. I don't see how them not moving on their points is anymore disruptive than me repeating my stance. It will be interesting to see if the wheels of wiki are able to deal with vested interests well these days - this holocaust stuff looks like revenge for the creationists being labeled as denialists. Looking on the web the moon hoax/skin head stuff is very new (last decade) and does look like a "wedge strategy" approach as popular interest in the lack of documentary support has grown. The growth of more scientific historical techniques will be interesting as the current approach seems to state opinions/theories as "fact" with no admission of uncertainties. Hope the babes are well and I will try to add a moderate voice to the debate. Sophia ♫  18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

CMT
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only editor who has agreed to mediation that has not yet posted a statement. Could you please try to do so within the next 24 hours? Thanks. NW ( Talk ) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

correction
Hi James, yes I meant the exact opposite, she is only notable and well known by her pseudonym. Listen why not ask rhe question and start a straw poll to see where general opinion is? Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

CMT
Stirling effort, ^^James^^. I'm distracted at the moment. Anthony (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)