User talk:JoanneB/Archive2006/Rest of 2006

Proposal i want to introudce biologists and philosophers point of view on time, there is now only physicists.
So this is my question to the 5 people (including me) who have been in this argument. I wont repose the articles. Howevery if you 5 give me a vote (mine is yes) on this question and we get majority yes, i will go on with this interesting effort: i am going to prepare int eh sand box a few articles on the other visions of time, the philosophical vision who deals with past, present and future, the 3 temporal verbs, and the biological vision who deals with feedbacks, multiple cycles and the arrows of informative evolution and derviates. I will quote and search for that before putting them, i will use many authors not only the works of my father (who writes mainly in basque hence doesnt appear a lot in google only his trnaslations to spanish but you can google luis sancho soto and?or 'los ciclos del tiempo', but mainly biologists, eastern philosophers and system scientists. And the question is, since it is going to be a big effort: are you going to give a chance to those articles or just bring the dogmatic vision of physicists that 'time is what a clock measures' (einstein) as oppossed to philosophers: 'time is all forms of change'Aristotle, and biologists with his arrow of information and life? Please do respond me to my talk, i have spent the entire week end on those articles and they were just erased in seconds. And that is not fair. I ask you to forget any argument or cultural bashing i had done, (apologize for that) and put an objective pov on this and give me a vote. if i get 3 nos i am out of here, if i get 3 yes, i will work hard in proper spelling, etc.

The core matter here is that time is a variable that affect all sciences and cannot be reviewed only by physicists
Ok Joanne, i will go along and write properl researhed, it seems the only hardcore censor hiere is mr. connolley. He is the only one who truly thinks he knows everything and just realized the one who erased me blocked me and didnt give me time to do my job. The rest of you seem to be pretty fair so iill go ahead when i have some time free and do the right thing. Respect to original research this is not. As all is published and I am not the author. This is for the record the ongoing argumetn with connoley and the reasons why i got angry and wrote stupid remarks, sorry about that... I do strongly disagree though with Mr. connolley way of dismissing work he ignores and puts aside with words like junk, garbage, etc. That is not the way to deal with newCOMERS. So he writes: connolley You need to read up on the the "original reseach" WP:OR and no-autobiography policies (within which a biog of your father would probably be discouraged). At the least, you need to make your relation to the subject clear by a note on the talk page. Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe is either wrong, garbled or meaningless - probably the latter. I certainly don't know what you mean by it. Wiki isn't here for you to expond your personal theories William M. Connolley 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) and i answer alvatros> Ok, i just dont believe you have not heard of circadian cycles, non linear dynamics, the different speeds of times affected by relativity, the arrow of information (or biological arrow of time), system sciences, the relativism of clock-time as a measure of translational change (Aristotle's metaphysics) and how the pioneers Galileo and Descartes ('the world'), defined physical time as only one of the aspects of Time-Change. I want to expand those concepts of time. Respect to my father's work he is considered in my country (the basque country) and increasingly spain where his books were translated (google luis sancho soto, ciclos del tiempo), a classic of time philosophy. All the quotes that will be introduced here will be from his published books and University papers, since the 80s, when quantic space-time was an oddity. His work however is complementary to the one of Smolin and others in as much as quantum gravity concentrates in quantic space and the work i will bring here concentrates in quantic time, i imagine you have a strong physics background but not a strong biological, systemic and philosophical background and so i think you should not mae the knd of heavy statements you keep doing on the work of those other scientists, like junk, garbled, wrong or meaningless but stick to your matter and let censor whatever i write here with proper fonts by biologists and philosophers. And again, certainly whatever relationship i have with luis sancho, a leading time philosopher from the latin culture that has given to mankind some of the best writers on that field from greece, italy, france and spain, fro aristotle to bergson from galileo to the existentialist movement deserves respect. The fact that basque is a 200000 people language and there is a very limited translation of foreign books in the english speakign millieu doesnt make those fonts unreliable, i have read all the policies and writing about a university scholar, with reputation and 30 years of books and publishing is deserved. But my aim is to bring back the entire philosophical and biological tradition on time, which is far more compelx than the reduccionist aproach of physics, which is only a form of time-change, translational time change. Ok? I simply think work on biology and philosophy should not be deleted by a physicist so my question here is, when i put them there how can i expect those articles to be reviwed not by physicist. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley"

Sockpuppet
I have reviewed the history of edits for user:Pm_shef. Is it just me that now thinks that Pm_shef is running a sockpuppet farm? It appears that user:Vaughanwatch could in fact be a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. Look through all the edits of Pm_shef, the articles edits, the day of the edits, the time the edits take place. The question is why would he be doing this trying to frame the governement group and its president? Then you look at the who Pm_shef is (son of a councillor) and I think answers my question.--67.71.86.57 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think he has sockpuppets, request a checkuser at WP:RFCU. Kind regards, --JoanneB 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that this anon removed sockpuppet notices from several VaughanWatch sock pages, and is now blocked as a sock of VaughanWatch. Syrthiss 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for the unblock. Rock on! --ragesoss 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing vote
I note that you have now moved the article to Union Flag. As the closing Admin, could you please do that nice green box around the vote, to show that it is closed, giving it the standard header with your closing comment. That way, it is clear to newcomers that that is an archived vote. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, will do that. I was not 'the closing admin' though, I only fixed a copy paste move that was performed by someone else. --JoanneB 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw that
I saw what you just did to your monobook, hmm, will have to make myself extra special busy tonight :p --Alf melmac 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eeeeek!! Big brother is watching me!! (/me hides behind the couch) --JoanneB 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And his sister too :) --Alf melmac 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Its ok everything i have written is deleted including my father's autobiography, this is america these days, it seems unavoidable that mixture of arrogance and ignorance... of course in the mean time i was blocked not to be able to respnd by mr. Connolley who called 'junk'all those articles so i called him Mr. Junk sorry about that. But the matter is time and the different views of pysicists and biologists. To delete everything and maintain the point of view of physics about time which so deeply difers from the point of view of biology and philosophy and eastern cultures as the dogmatic truth is the goal of all that bunch of people. Deja vu. It is called censorship. You should just help me to edit in better english the ideas about time i bring here from those other traditions... I planned to work 'discontnuously'this week, from classic sources including the work of that Luis Sancho (google luis sancho soto and the books on his deleted biography to get hits, these themes are on 'Ciclos del tiempo'). , Other errors come from the fact i am learning to edit. But the matter here is time. Do physicists have the absolute right to know truth? Why? Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe, ahve we to stick to Mr. Galileo definition? Why? Are science a religion with a single point of view? Why? It will take me a time to find the exact quotes of Boltzmann, Sancho, Einstein, Lao Tse, etc. as i am in holidays, ok? Just be patient.

getting rid of an article
the title of the article Lowell Catholic High School was spelled incorrectly. (caholic) I made a new one can you get rid of the old one

thanks

Tjdstl

Thanks
Thanks for thanking out the Personal Attack on my user page!  Aerographer Wind Sock  18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Genuine apology
Hi JoanneB,

It's YourCousin, not your cousin.

I wanted to write you one more time and definitely apologise for being heavy handed and whatever I was earlier. It was unnecessary. I'm very sorry. You were polite and cordial all the way.

I never said that you were not intelligent. I could see that you clearly were/are.

All of this mess came from me wanting the guy to source his quote. He attempted to flatten me.... That was his response.

I simply could not allow some 18 year old and his admin gang-members to flatten me.... not completely anyway. So I usd the sockpuppets and a score and 11/20 ISPs. You can call it "the wrong way".. I think it's funny... and you were right, the guy is losing his RFA 42/22/5... I get 59%... you?

As an admin person, if you take your position seriously, I want you to know that I'm not intending to do this forever... I'm not gonna become a vigilante... ha! Like Charled Bronson: "DEATH WIKISH"... ohh never mind... you could be 20 and have no idea what I just said...

Anyway! I'm truly sorry to have been abrupt with you. You are more "not so thorough" than incompetent or inept. I retract my negative remark. I was agitated already then when you reprimanded me (me feeling like a victim already) I snapped...

You were truly the ONLY person that has EVER contacted me on Wikipedia with or without me having a sockpuppet, that was totally polite, cordial and didn't TOTALLY BLANK me.

Thanks...

You are good admin...(I think)

When I can figure out how to hand out awards with my proper ID, i will send some your way.

Have a lovely rest of the weekend.

YourCousin--194.164.208.177 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rossing
Thank you for fixing the Rossing article. I wanted to let you know that I expanded it a bit. Regards, TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work! --JoanneB 10:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!
  Open your card! Dear Joanne, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best. And so we meet again, dear Joanne, and in much more pleasant circumstances, fortunately :) Yet, my opinion of you has not changed in the least; I continue to look up to you like the first day, and being supported by a person I sincerely admire meant the world to me. You are by far one of our best, J, and I hope our paths cross again as often as possible. Please take good care, and I hope to talk to you again real soon! :) With a big hug, your friend,   P h a e d r i e l  ♥  tell me  

Symantec AntiVirus Page
JoanneB,

I was astonished when I read the definition for Symantec AntiVirus today. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to be a neutral source of factual data. The entire criticism section just blew me away. I was even more surprised that instead of simply deleting the bad content that the proposed solution was to arbitrate a new NPROs section where somebody could write content that was pro to Symantec AV to "balance" the critisms section? I thought that your role as a Patroller was to enforce neutrality with an eye on factual content. Is the goal of Wikipedia to encourage all software manufacturers and their advocates to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to mud-sling and blast competitors with misinformation that would otherwise have them sued for libel in any other print media? That would make at least the software section of Wikipedia very useless.

Mark Lawler Chief Technical Officer, ProSight, Inc.
 * You did not use an edit summary, so your removal looked like vandalism to me, my apologies. Wikipedia gets a lot of that, so when someone out of genuine motives removes an entire paragraph, it's hard to gauge their intentions. I will revert my revert, so your action stands. As for your other comments: the fact that I revert what seems to be vandalism from an article, does not make me responsible for the neutrality of the article from then on. I care about Wikipedia's neutrality a great deal, but I cannot make sure of that for all 1,2 million articles that we have. --JoanneB 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your feedback at request for feedback about the article Scarborough, Ontario WilyD 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Joy Bang
Oops, I just made Articles_for_deletion/Joy_Bang already. No need for it now. --Xyzzyplugh 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
— freak([ talk]) 17:52, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, no problem! --JoanneB 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Page recreation
It happened because I hit the back button on Firefox to go back to something else! Sorry about that! --TheM62Manchester 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, just thought it would be nice to stop it :P --JoanneB 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to stop doing that on FireFox! --TheM62Manchester 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that would be a good idea :) I do use Firefox all the time though, but I use loads of tabs and I just close a tab in a case like that. --JoanneB 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just saying thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page :-) — Mets 501 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.
Please elaborate on the "vandalism" I committed. A "last warning" is pretty serious and if it's just randomly being thrown around...I don't know what Wikipedia's coming to. S oa  P  14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not throw it around randomly. If you check my contributions, you will see that I do not use a last warning lightly. I left you that warning because you had been vandalising and trolling in the past (and even blocked for that), and now you were leaving templates saying that people were blocked while they weren't (I've deleted those pages, but they're still in the deletion log if you want proof). I would assume good faith if you were a new editor, thinking you might just be confused, but you're not a new editor and I don't think you're that confused. --JoanneB 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry-I was trying to help by pointing out inaproppriate usernames. Is there perchance a template saying that there is an inaproppriate username that needs to be blocked? If you could tell me if there is, that would be great...or I'll just make one myself. Sorry for the accidental vandalism. S  oa  P  15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry that I misjudged your intentions, my apologies. I'd explain what the problem was with what you did, but that would be a case of what's described in WP:BEANS ;) Also if you want to prevent people from thinking you're a vandal, it might help to use some better descriptive edit summaries! Anyway, the best place to report questionable usernames is WP:AIV. Regards, --JoanneB 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:BlockUsername has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 19:21Z 

Admin coaching update
My admin coaching notes say that you wanted to delay being assigned a new trainee until July. Well July has gone, so I wanted to check if you are now ready to help coach someone? Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Petros471 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!


Enjoy your Wiki-Birthday! Thisthema n  19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a user talk page
Given the number of messages from other users, including warnings, why did you delete User talk:Nathanrdotcom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
 * Because he asked me to. He has been blocked indefinitely, and as he is not planning on coming back, there's no need to keep those warnings. As far as I know, such requests after a user's departure are rarely denied. --JoanneB 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do realise that if he were ever to come back, such warnings and other messages would be relevant again, but in that case, they're easy to restore. --JoanneB 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This matter appears to still be in process, so deletion seems precipitous. I suggest that it'd be better to archive the page instead. User page indicates that deleting is generally not done when there is significant commentary on the page. New comments are being added to the page as well, muddying the page's history. -Will Beback 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nathan has been blocked, and has decided to leave the project forever. Mackensen closed the discussion about it, and I don't think the matter is 'still in progress', other than that people are still talking about it. However, I've restored it, I'll let others deal with it if there's agreement about its deletion. --JoanneB 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your action. For good or bad, folks who announce a decision to leave Wikipedia forever often return. Leaving it archived preserves the record. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Smile.


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Daniel's page  ☎  04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Monobook, Popups.
Hey, Joanne. I'm Daniel5127. My purpose here is to ask the way of making my own monobook, and popups. Right now, I still hardly try to make my own monobook because it would be benefits for reverting vandalism, personal attacks, and obscenities.... Because most of Wikipedians use their own Popups to revert vandals on article immediately. Anyways, Could you please explain to me how to make my monobook, and getting popups in my talk page? Cheers! Daniel's page  ☎  04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to barge in here, I just noticed this by a reply higher up in the page on my ususal RC patrol. This is your monobook.js. Just edit it like a normal page, except it must be valid Javascript. As for revert tools, I recommend you look at User talk:Voice of All's RC patrol script - it has popups, admin like rollback tools and one click warnings. MER-C 09:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you :) Daniel, that's a good link. I don't know much about monobooks myself, my own monobook consists of bits and pieces that I've gathered over the last few months, but I know little of how they actually work, or which parts do what. --JoanneB 10:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome
Thats alright JoanneB, nothing compares to someone's happiness :D Take care -- Imo eng  10:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for using the word URGENT. I used it because he was blanking repeatedly (4 times in a minute). - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) It's just that that might 'degrade' the word a bit, but I can see how you thought it was important to stop it! --JoanneB 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. I've received through e-mail my new password. Could you please unblock my deadly-jeopernized account? Thanks in advance! HRE 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FireFox
No, I'm not mistaken. The user, the admin is User:FireFox, and he has deleted his own pages.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I noticed :( Apparently I was the one who got them mixed up this time. --JoanneB 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of NathanRdotcom
Hi,

I came here to make a suggestion about something else and stumbled across User:Will Beback's request to restore User:Nathanrdotcom's talk page.

I have a question about the indefinite blocking of User:Nathanrdotcom. I am asking more from a desire to understand policy than a specific desire to unblock this user. Someday, I may put in an RfA and I would like to understand the nuances of blocking a little bit better.

(NB: I remember Nathanrdotcom as one of the participants in a contentious dispute immediately before Esperanza blew up earlier this year.)

Other than one violation of WP:3RR, NathanRdotcom does not seem to have done anything particularly egregious. User:Sceptre blocked Nathanrdotcomfor "a particularly spiteful e-mail". Now, incivility in spiteful e-mails is not a good thing but it doesn't harm Wikipedia in the way that violations of WP:3RR or incivility on Talk Pages does. Should it be the basis for an indefinite block?

--Richard 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia or the people involved have much to gain by long discussions about this, but don't worry about not understanding the ins and outs of this in light of your own possible future adminship. Sometimes extreme or unusual situations are not covered by policy, that's just inevitable I guess. --JoanneB 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Salvation
Here's the real reason I stopped by. I've noticed that you edit (revert vandalism) on articles related to the Catholic Church. There is an RFC over a dispute about the "Roman Catholicism" section of the Salvation article. Since you are a fellow Esperanzian and an admin, I'm interested to know what your opinion is of what I wrote in response. --Richard 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment looks very sensible to me and well explained. If the whole wiki was written/edited from that kind of standpoint, it would definitely have less conflict and more interesting and reliable content :) --JoanneB 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:67.171.47.145 vandalized by the user in question.
"bot" was changed to the curse word that would typically be used against somebody of your gender. The user was repeatedly slandering the mini-entry for Blooregard Q. Kazoo too, so I'm not going to show any mercy at all about whether or not to report him. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for letting me know. I'd block, but I think bots should be for prevention only, not for punishment, and as his last edit was a few hours ago, I don't think blocking right now would do any good. I'll keep an eye on him and will block if he continues. If you see him do it and I'm not around, feel free to report him at WP:AIV. --JoanneB 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: My edits
Hi, I'm not sure if what you're doing fits WP:GUS: you're moving all these userboxes to project space, rather than user space. Am I just seeing this wrong? If not, could you please change your edit summary, or move them to user space? Thanks! --JoanneB 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been moving them under migrated out of template space into userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject. clause of the WP:GUS. Since all of the userboxes are anime or manga related WikiProject Anime and manga is the appropriate and corresponding WikiProject. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought I had read the page carefully but apparently I missed that. Sorry! --JoanneB 21:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Westies (people)
Thanks you for the work you did closing Articles for deletion/Easties (people). The other article Articles for deletion/Westies (people) has also been listed for deletion. It would be hoped that for the sake of uniformity that you would also close this discussion. Failing that I would be pleased if you would comment in this discussion. The articles are equivalent and could be said to be opposing articles. I have been editing Westies for several months and the problem is the large amount of unverified contributions to attracts. It is a magnet for people who wish to vilify others based solely on where they live. Thanks. --WikiCats 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you your work on Articles for deletion/Westies (people). Your decision was keep. Could you please explain the reason for your decision? --WikiCats 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have several articles that are magnets like that, and that alone should never be a reason for deleting an article. I don't agree with you on those being 'equivalent' articles: the main difference is that the Westies article actually has some sources and while it isn't one of our best articles, based on what I can see (with the policy I quoted in closing the other one) and based on the discussion, I don't see a reason for deleting this one. --JoanneB 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joanne. Thank you for your explanation. People from Sydney’s east began referring to people from the Greater West as “westies”. In retaliation they started calling those from the Eastern suburbs “easties”. The Easties and Westies articles were created within a month of one each other. Both are essentially derogeratory and representative of the social battle that exists in Sydney. They are opposing points of view in a class war.

The guidelines say that we must present all points of view. They describe how to deal with class bias issues here: “Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.”

We have a situation where the Wikipedia describes social vilification towards people from one area but blocks the response to that vilification. This is a serious matter.

However you may justify it, you have deleted one point of view whilst keeping the other. How do you propose to correct your error? --WikiCats 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I closed a discussion about an article (Easties), based on very explicit policy:


 *  Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.


 * I strongly believe that, right now, an article about the Easties cannot exist without breaching those policies. It's too new as a term to have been described (not just used!) in reliable sources. I'm not saying that such an article will never exist in the future: deleting an article at a certain time does not imply that we will never have an article about that topic in the future. My deletion was not a judgement about the term itself, just about the fact whether it had been described by enough sources to write a decent Wikipedia article, so that it would not be original research. Those sources were not available at the start of the AfD, nor were they added during, nor was I able to find them myself.


 * The other article (Westies) does have some decent sources, and consists of more verifiable statements, rather than the bunch of prejudices that the other article consisted of. It seems to me that one term has been in use for quite a bit longer than the other, and thus has a wider use and its use has been described. Is that unfair? No, because Wikipedia, by design, will always be a bit 'slow' when it comes to neogolisms and terms that are used specific cultures. It should be, because only then decent articles can be written. That's the goal of Wikipedia, not the facilitation of 'getting even'.


 * Does this make me responsible for this 'bias'? I don't think so, so I do not think that there's an error that I need to correct. If you disgree, there's always Deletion Review. --JoanneB 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains, one point of view has been deleted from the encyclopedia. It's not up to me to fix your mistakes. --WikiCats 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been no mistake as far as I can see. Articles themselves must be verifiable, points of views that can be verified are for inlcusion. Should any verifiable data about Easties emerge it can either go in the Westies article with a redirect or if there's enough make a reasonable stub. --Alf melmac 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiCats, I refuse to believe that I have made a mistake, just because you tell me I have. I've quite elaborately explained above why I feel I have not made a mistake, so for me, this is the end of this story. Again, feel free to take it elsewhere, I would not mind explaining my point again at Deletion Review, an RfC, or wherever else you want to take this. Oh, and naturally: if you write a decent article about 'Easties', with proper sources, I will be the last person to stand in your way. --JoanneB 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal that Neutral point of view can be avoided by other guidelines is ludicrous. We have a situation where an opposing point of view in the Sydney class battle has been deleted. I am from Sydney and I can tell you that I am personally outraged that this condition exists in the Wikiopedia. If you felt that Easties was not sustainable then you needed to delete Westies to maintain NPOV. An examination of the AfDs reveals that I fought hard against this situation occurring. It’s either both points of view or neither. You can not walk away from the situation that you created. It is an admins. role to protect the integrity of Wikipedia not put it at risk. I again stress that it is not my duty to sort out this mess. --WikiCats 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you were personally very involved, and I'm sorry that you're so frustrated. However, you see it as a mess, I don't, that's the difference. NPOV is a very important principle, yes, I acknowledge that fully. But that does not mean that we can have articles about every topic, even if we do have one about something that you see as an opposing topic. The integrity of this encyclopedia strongly depends on the fact that we're not making things up here, and we can show to the world that we don't, because we base ourselves on reliable sources. If we loose that principle, no matter how neutral we are, we're just another website, and our credibility goes down the drains. One article had enough sources and was verifiable, the other wasn't. That has nothing to do with NPOV. This decision was about the content of the first article: it was rubbish, and I believe you agreed with that. The second article wasn't, as some people managed to find some decent sources for that. You literally asked me to close the second AfD, yet you don't respect my opinion and decision after doing so. That's your every right, but I've explained myself and I will not take any other action in this regard. I stand for my principles and priorities, I strongly believe that they're aligned with Wikipedia's principles and priorities, and I will not give them up because you disagree. --JoanneB 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I put an oar in here? I've been tracking this discussion via my watchlist. I think that this discussion has gotten stuck in a "I'm right / No you're not" rut. Unfortunately, I'm late to a party that I'm hosting so I don't have time to really look at this at the level of detail that it deserves.

My quick analysis is that there SHOULD be an article called Easties (people) but I don't have the time to look at the old article and fully understand why it was deleted. It seems that some of the sources for the Westies (people) article also mention the Eastie stereotype so it seems that a sourced article could be written about Easties.

Can I ask both of you to give it a rest (go to the Esperanza cafe and get a cup of chai or Taize or whatever) and then let's look at it from a "how do we write an acceptable article about Easties" perspective. I will try to look at it within the next couple of days. (full weekend with the family takes priority over Wikipedia; sorry).

I've seen WikiCats around and I know he's a respectable editor. I also have a lot of respect for JoanneB. So, IMO, this is just a disagreement between two respected Wikipedians. No trolls anywhere in sight. We just need to get off the emotions and principles shtick and focus on how to improve Wikipedia.

--Richard 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Richard, you're absolutely right. Thanks for reminding me :) I've let real life tension show in my communication style too much here. WikiCats, my apologies. --JoanneB 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I'm back and, man, what a busy weekend it was. OK, I had a little bit of time this morning to look at the two articles: Westies (people) and Easties (people), the latter of which I codged off of a Wikipedia copier that hadn't synched since the deletion of the article.  I also did some Google searching to learn more about the topic.


 * Here's my two cents worth. The Easties article deserved to be deleted as poorly sourced and so poorly written (POV) as to fall below the standard of acceptable quality for Wikipedia.  However, I do understand WikiCat's argument that the two articles should either both exist or both not exist.  That is true in the long-term.  JoanneB's argument, however, is a short-term argument.  Easties was below the standard.  Westies was above the standard (just barely).  The solution of deleting Easties was correct in the short-term.  The long-term solution is to rewrite Easties to be above the standard (and maybe improve the Westies article as well).


 * Here's what I mean by "the standard of acceptable quality for Wikipedia". Consider the following articles: Nigger,Yuppie,Townie,Chicano.  All these are higher in quality than Westies (people) except maybe for Yuppie.  I'm a little surprised that the article on Yuppies is so thin.  Seems to me that there is a veritable gold mine of material (no, not Yuppie jokes) to write on that topic.


 * Anyway, I put the resurrected text from Easties (people) in a sandbox called User:richardshusr/Easties (people). The intent is to use this sandbox as a staging area while the article is being worked on (so as to avoid an immediate AfD as soon as the article is created).  I'm not the best person to improve this article because I know next to nothing about the article (nothing at all until two days ago).  --Richard 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hullo, what's this?  It's a speech by Genia McCaffrey (mayor of North Sydney) and one of her topics is "Easties vs. Westies".


 * I also like this link, not a WP:RS but it does identify five types of white people in Sydney.


 * Wikicats, if you agree with my analysis above, feel free to move this discussion over to my Talk Page so we can stop clogging up JoanneB's page with this.


 * --Richard 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This debate has been moved to User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 08:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The J Curve
Apologies for deletion of your comment on The J Curve, I wasn't aware of the convention. I edited the article on the basis of a number of other listings of comparable works on international politics (Friedman and the like); the page now looks fine to me. Please remove your deletion request if you agree. Thank you. 19 August 2006
 * Hi, I actually didn't add the AfD notice myself. I saw it was nominated for deletion, and that you had removed it. It's no problem, we have all had to learn :) However, as the deletion discussion has started now, it will run for five days, and then it will be closed by one of our administrators. If the result is 'keep', the article will be kept. If the result is 'delete', it will be deleted. Discussions are very rarely closed before those five days are over, I don't think this is such an extreme case that that will happen. For what it's worth, I think the book is notable enough to keep the article, I'll add my vote to reflect that. By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ), that will automatically add your username or IP and the time and date of the comment. --JoanneB 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Please do not remove the Fromkin citation; the professor has discussed the issue piece of trivia at public fora (including a recent Futures Conference at Boston University). 67.86.120.150 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please read Verifiability to see what kind of information from what kind of sources we can accept. Has he, or someone else written about it somewhere? If I can help you out somehow, please let me know. --JoanneB 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

netball article
Hallo Joanne- I'm not necessarily questioning your decision, but can you explain your decision to keep quite so speedily for Cynna Kydd in more detail? Because it isn't clear to me that this nom fulfills any of the speedy keep criteria...Badgerpatrol 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, policy doesn't cover everything, and I think it's so unusual to have today's featured article nominated, that no one ever thought to write policy that covers that event. I left some more explanation here: User_talk:MatthewFenton. --JoanneB 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a bad decision, and bad process. The easy cure for this situation would be to avoid main page FAs where notability is disputed. To my reading, the speedy criteria are perfectly explicit and specifically preclude unilateral actions of this nature. Badgerpatrol 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What might be bad is that we have someone on the main page who's notability is disputed. However, if that's a mistake, then starting an AfD on this article today is the worst possible solution to that mistake. Talk to the FA people, talk to Raul, but having an article on the main page with a big possible deletion notice is very wrong. Remember that Wikipedia was made for readers, and a lot of those readers that read the main page article are not people that know anything about process. --JoanneB 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that this featured article is a potential deletion candidate. Placing a deletion tag on this article tells people who have clicked on the article that we don't consider featured articles to be worth keeping.  It sends conflicting messages to people who don't know the project, and gives a very unprofessional impression.  Waiting a few days before nominating the article for deletion will not do any harm.  Even better, make a note on the talk page outlining the problems you think the article has and suggesting deletion as a possible remedy.  There may well be other remedies that are more appropriate (merging to an article about Australian netball, or the national team, say).  There is no urgency to delete a high quality article, even if it should prove to be unsuitable (due to "notability") for Wikipedia, --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, respectfully, ignoring due process sends out a worse message. Having the AfD notice for an article of this kind would in my view actually help to introduce newcomers and casual visitors to the workings of the encyclopaedia and send out the message that articles are vetted (at least to some degree) and not just any old nonsense makes the cut. That's a very powerful and worthwhile message, given WP's mixed reputation. As a separate issue, one does not like to see unilateral actions by administrators which, as in this case, contravene specific policy. It seems to be a developing trend. However, as you say, I strongly suspect this situation could and should have been foreseen and prevented from occurring in the first place. (Note for clarification that it wasn't me who nominated the article for AfD) Badgerpatrol 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone who strongly believes in policy and process I still fully support JoanneB's closure, and totally agree with Tony's argument (and after edit conflict Cyde's). Petros471 18:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to applaud JoanneB's actions here, and suggest to Badgerpatrol that he many not really understand how things work round these parts. We don't rigorously abide by process. It's in an administrator's discretion to do what's right, like closing an obviously shit nomination of a featured front page article. Expanding the "speedy keep" criteria or what not is the wrong "solution" ... adding a bunch more laws and policies just leaves more room for people to search for various loopholes and exploit them. One of our only real "laws" is "do what's right" ... and JoanneB did that in this situation without worrying about suffocating bureaucracy. So please don't give her any grief over it. -- Cyde Weys 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to give anybody "grief" over anything. I would like to discuss her decision however, in the spirit of openess and consensus which is in keeping with the community ethos of the project. Apologies if my arguments have come across as incivil, that's not at all my intent. I do have a pretty good idea of how the project is supposed to work- it's a possibility that our philosophies and outlook do differ, though. It also isn't clear to me that this nomination was "obviously shit", either. Can you expand? Badgerpatrol 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Process is important vs Ignore all rules, of course. I too support JoanneB's actions. At the very least, an AfD nomination can wait the six or so hours for the article to no longer be today's Featured Article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call and perhaps a matter of personal philosophy- following Cyde's comment above I should clarify that I am not in any way attacking JoanneB, and I'm sorry if my comments were construed that way- apologies for the misconception. However, I do strongly disagree with her decision- not just because it was the wrng choice, but because it contravenes the spirit of the speedy keep criteria, which are basically designed to guard against out of process or bad faith noms. Here, the nom was according to due process, but the keep wasn't! The reason for having explicit guidelines is surely to prevent inconsistency caused by the influence of an individual's personal views. BUT, once again, this situation should never have arisen. The real lesson perhaps is working towards a refinement of the FA selection criteria, especially when showcased on the main page (perhaps an extra layer of slection for main page as opposed to regular FAs?). This was not a "shit" or bad faith nomination- nor one that would necessarily have been met with a unanimous "keep". It shouldn't ever be the case that a reasonable editor in good faith can justifiably nominate an FA for delection, as seems to have occurred here. Anyway, that's a separate issue. Badgerpatrol 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be perfectly fine to nominate this article for deletion in a few days when this is off the main page. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would just like to echo the sentiments above: that JoanneB's desision was totally correct under the circumstances, and that this just exemplifies the problem with hard-and-fast rules. ignoring all rules is sometimes very important, especially when it benefits the encyclopedia and its readers (like in this case). Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Support JoanneB's decision. Very WP:ROUGE of you, well done. I just can't imagine a set of circumstances (and I'm a BIG process wonk, ask anyone) in which noming this for AfD while it's an FA and on the main page is in any way shape or form a good idea, and to do so seems to suggest a not very good understanding of how things are are around here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs).

Sorry Badgerpatrol, I didn't mean to give the appearance of you being incivil or anything. It's just that having our main page featured article up for deletion makes use look stupid, and we don't want to look stupid. AFDs on main page featured articles have been routinely closed before. Please wait until it's off the main page for trying to bring it up for a deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't intend to bring it up for deletion- because personally I don't think it should be deleted (although whether it genuinely represents our "best work", I'm not so sure, and it is certainly not a 100% clear-cut keeper to my mind at least). For the reasons I describe above, I'm not so sure that open AfDs on main page FAs are necessarily such a bad idea, but if the precedent is to speedily close good-faith AfDs on MPFAs anyway, then the simplest route is to float the idea (of a 24-hour delay on AfD noms) on the Speedy Keep talk page as a sixth criterion. If there's no or minimal dissent, then in a short time it becomes formalised policy. Simple. Badgerpatrol 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that sort of approach is that policies would then evolve into a mass of exceptions for dozens of rare cases, and that would be a Bad Thing. It's much simpler to use common sense for unusual cases. Anyway, it occurs to me that JoanneB might appreciate these conversations being carried on elsewhere than her talk page, maybe Talk:Cynna Kydd. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for removing the vandalism from my user page on 31 Jul - hv been inactive for the last one month. Hv a good day!! --Gurubrahma 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --JoanneB 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A source? The common sense. The fans all around the world. What means classic for u? And what's POV? Thanks Machocarioca 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca
 * Sorry, that won't be enough. Please read Verifiability for more information about what kind of sources we're looking for. POV (although I can't remember using that) means "Point of View", you can read more about that here: WP:NPOV. --JoanneB 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tought the common sense was enough. Many books and articles see Louis as the classic Monneypenny. I´ll find some. Machocariocamachocarioca

Parochialism in Sydney
Hi Joanne. Parochialism in Sydney is the latest effort to address the POV problem when Easties was deleted. It was discussed here: Talk:Westies_(people). Editors are again trying to prevent a solution to this NPOV issue. Your opinion on this issue is valued. Do you think Parochialism in Sydney is a viable article? --WikiCats 04:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, first of all, my apologies for my late response. I've been very busy with real life. The bottom line here is verifiability, I think. Decent sources, that have not just mentioned some concept, but have described it very well too. And I'm afraid that that was not possible with that article. I appreciate your efforts, but it looks like you're a bit ahead of time: if these concepts that you keep wanting to write about are used and documented, writing the article is a good next step, but it shouldn't be the other way around. --JoanneB 08:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WCN - etentje
Beste JoanneB, Aanstaande zaterdag is het zover, dan vind de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland plaats waar je je voor hebt opgegeven! Bij je inschrijving gaf je aan dat je nog niet helemaal zeker was dat je kunt komen. Kun je het zeggen als je meer weet? Hartelijk dank! We hopen je graag te mogen begroeten in Utrecht. Kijk op deze pagina voor informatie hoe je er kunt komen. Tot 31 augustus kun je nog vooruitbetalen voor zover je dat nog niet hebt gedaan, je krijgt dan €2,50 korting op de toegangsprijs. Er zijn nog plaatsen vrij, dus als je andere enthousiastelingen mee wilt nemen, zijn die van harte welkom. Wel graag inschrijven op de inschrijvingspagina.

Je kunt je ook inschrijven voor het wokken na de conferentie. Schrijf je svp zo snel mogelijk in, dan kunnen we plaatsen reserveren. De extra kosten bedragen €17,50 excl. drankjes.

Ik hoop dat jullie een geweldige conferentie zullen hebben komende 2 september, en dat er ook veel mensen mee gaan uit eten.

Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy
I just tried to restore the paragraph too, but I think my script failed me somewhat. I've contacted the user to consider rewriting the paragraph rather then outright removing it; you may wish to join the discussion here. Thanks :) &mdash;Xyra e l / 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmec
Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I have been quite busy lately. I think others have stepped in in the mean time, my apologies for not responding! --JoanneB 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Commons?
Commons:User:JoanneB made an slightly unusual request to Commons:User:Pfctdayelise's talk page earlier today. This then got raised at the Commons Village Pump. Could you reply to me on en.wikipedia to confirm if this user is you or not. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can definitely say that that's not me, and since he/she is pretending to be me, pointing to OTRS and this page, I'd really appreciate a block on that account. Thanks! --JoanneB 13:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Donal
Sorry, but i thought it had to be a wrong version of Donald. Anyways, i understand. Strange name.The 89 guy 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

the IP address 194.223.93.252,registered to Government schools; Maidenhead; GB,is performing constant vandalism,including one such act less then 10 minutes ago Pikajedi3

You are going to bust a gut laughing when you read this one...
See this: Requests for checkuser/Case/JoanneB. Should this be copied to BJAODN? Jesse Viviano 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed :) Thanks for letting me know! --JoanneB 08:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it when a 'coup' backfires :) --Alf melmac 08:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * :) I must admit though, I was a likely suspect of course, so chances of his getting away with it were great, of course :) --JoanneB 08:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have transcluded it here:Hello. My name is Bad Jokes. You Deleted my Other Nonsense. Prepare to die. Jesse Viviano 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29
As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone at Admin coaching. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Thank you for helping with admin coaching! H ig hway Grammar Enforcer!  22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, as you can see in my response to Richard below, I have very little time! I think I'll withdraw myself from the program for the time being, when things change in the future, I'll reconsider. --JoanneB 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey JoanneB, if you're available to serve as an admin coach, would you consider coaching me in conjunction with User:FaysalF? I think I'm almost ready to submit an RFA (within the next month or so) so I don't think it would be a long gig.  I just want some help making sure I'm really ready to do it.  Due to FayssalF requesting me specifically as a coachee, I kind of jumped ahead of my normal spot in the line but that was a few months ago so I don't think I'd really be pre-empting anybody at this point.  However, I will defer to any opinions that HighwayCello may have on this issue.  Thanks for considering my request.  --Richard 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that you may not remember me since we haven't interacted in a couple of months. Several months ago, we worked together to prove that the Articles for deletion/George Harbottle article was a hoax.  I also helped defuse a dialog between you and User:WikiCats regarding deletion of Easties (people) that was getting a little bit tense.  A while back, you offered to nominate me for adminship when I was ready.  I did not take you up on the offer at the time because I did not feel adequately prepared for an RFA.  I am nearing the point where I think I will be ready in a few weeks.  I would appreciate your assistance in closing the gap and a co-nomination if you feel that I am qualified.  --Richard 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! I definitely remember you, and under different circumstances, I'd be more than happy to coach you. The problem is though, that I'm in the middle of a very busy time right now: new job, moving to a new home in two weeks... So I'm afraid it wouldn't really work out. However, if you have any specific questions, specific cases you'd like a second opinion on, feel free to email me - now and in the future - I'll always be happy to help that way. And definitely let me know when you're actually up for that RFA! --JoanneB 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About IP 69.217.73.2
Seems IP 69.217.73.2 starts its vandalism works again. ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪   (Ŧ) 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands elections
Hey! Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the election result? &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:71.138.166.230
Not sure what went on with this person. The contributions show they made several edits to Harry Potter articles then went on to edit your user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Here's wishing you a very merry and happy Christmas, if the relatives' cooking isn't up to scratch set the budgie on them :D - hoping for a peaceful and brave new year! --Alf melmac 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) As I was the one doing the cooking myself, I could control the quality, and all unedible inedible stuff was my own fault :) --JoanneB 15:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)