User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 7

Thanks
thanks for the advice and help- i like to do what i can when i'm on here (which isn't very often), but i did just get a new computer which means i will be on more, so i will make an account and try to learn some more 70.176.114.118 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

let's just say i have some very basic expirience here (NOT in a good way)but i am more interested in the project in a GOOD way now- so i will check the page

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
I agree with your analysis of the picture, and even deleted it (as it has been established as a copyright violation). I believe we should wait a bit, especially if Striver decides to go through with the RfC, before unprotecting. --  tariq abjotu  00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely puzzled by the reinclusion of Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg on this article, primarily because of the concerns which I saw you previously stating. Did you change your mind? It still seems to be an unencyclopaedic and graphic picture, which I thought we denied inclusion. Additionally, its claim to fair use is premised on this being an extremely unique event and/or the image as somehow being iconic enough to merit that status, something which I don't believe this image/event is. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about the anon - if its good enough for the international news-media, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. But like you say, it has serious POV and licencing issues, of which for me the POV seems the more problematic. At this point, even if there were explicit permission for its use, its inclusion would seem to be out of place. On a different note, I should point out that you've made good work of keeping both sides [relatively] cool. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Some More Old News about JINXTENGU
Well again I'm sorry to hash some more old news about JINXTENGU. I submitted this check user report and as you can see they stated that the static IP of the multiple accounts would be blocked for a month. Well apparently he is still able to create accounts through various methods (as you can see on my recent talk page history and this diff page). I have officially submitted him now as an abusive sockpuppeteer with the recent accounts he created. I'm surprised he has not yet realized how pointless it is to continue creating these accounts that will end up getting blocked time after time.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin talk same-sex marriage
Hi JoshuaZ: I just noticed that you and a few admins had a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147 that took place 16-17 November 2006. I would have liked to respond to the comments there at the time, but the page has already been archived, even though the question of editing the article is not over. So I am copying the following response to you, that I had wanted to put in. Best wishes, IZAK 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

Hi folks I just noticed your comments here and I wanted to respond in my own "defense" to set the record "straight" (good pun, no? ;-}) So here goes: IZAK 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If an article deals with same-sex marriage, then as long as the comment/s on a talk page (yet!) deals with that topic it is connected to it, even though it may be phrased in a way that may not always please everyone... because according to the Bible it is a shame on South Africa and any other place that makes same-sex marriage "legal" since the Bible condemns that kind of behavior. What if a law was passed "allowing" theft, or murder, or adultery? Would that make them "legal" too? This is not about WP:SOAP, this is about understanding why the majority of religious leaders and people are opposed to such things, and that can, must and will be part of articles like this. What can I do, I didn't write the Bible! Honest!
 * At no point did I re-insert my comment 3 times into the talk pae within 24 hours, and to say that it violates the 3RR is false. I did it over a few days, so there could not have been any application of the 3RR in this case under any circumstance.
 * תועבה can be translated in a few ways, I was using only one from the JPS version. Indeed, I actually prefer one translation given by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who said that the word means "mistaken act" תוע-בהbut regardless of how it translated into other languages, the Hebrew Bible clearly condemns this act.
 * The list of "abominations" in the Bible is long, and homosexuality is most definitely one of the abominations, so we can't argue it away with other comparisons that are not to the point.
 * I subsequently expanded the implications of what I had written on the talk page, but it was not written in "religious" terms, but that addition to the article was deleted because an editor there said it was "all made up".
 * At that point, after someone threatened to block me, instead of practicing what they preached and engaging me in a serious dialogue on the issues and not as a distraction about what I was doing, I took the entire matter to Mediation Cabal where it has remained this past week. See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa, where you can read the series of events and when they took place. Please feel free to add your comments there as well, I'd love to hear from you.
 * Finally, when the dust settles I will go back to work on the article and provide many more quotes and references, so that the article can reflect all parties views in South Africa, and not just those of the ANC-South African Communist Party-dominated government, parliament, and courts. There are always at least two sides to every story, right? That is the essence of NPOV. IZAK 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

happy Turkey-Day!!!!

 * Obviously your busy, but you might want to archive, the page is getting really long. :) Cheers! :  )  &mdash;  Rand  fan  !  !  17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate intervention in a debate you've shown interest in
JoushaZ wrote:
 * "Excuse me? Where have I participated in this discussion? JoshuaZ 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)"

You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient.

Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. --Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding Logging in and wikipedia policy
Wikipedia states: "Logging in is not required for viewing pages, and not even for editing them. However, it provides additional features, and in general projects recommend it." 136.183.146.158 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I am being disruptive
I don't believe I am being disruptive. I wish to edit in peace and not got annoying emails from the likes of ReasonisBest 136.183.146.158 03:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

logging in, continued
I am not getting as many harrassing emails now that I am not logging in. The proof is in the pudding. Secondly, not logging in is not sockpuppetry. There is nothing on Wikipedia saying not logging in is sockpuppetry. I also am not being disruptive and doing things like "voting twice" vis a vis different usernames. 136.183.146.158 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ken
You are right. I am not in the best frame of mind or best mood. Sorry.--Filll 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pharisee
Here is the sense I wanted to use that phrase in:

frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous [rule-followers], the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person

The only part I would disagree slightly with, for the gentleman in question, is the phrase "rule-followers". I am talking about someone who makes a big show of his faith and is overly self confident and disdainful of others with other beliefs.--Filll 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of Mechitza
Josh, I changed the Mechitza article to say more about Moshe Feinstein's ruling that a Mechitza is required as a matter of Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Feinstein's perspective is quite remarkable. The idea that there is Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai out there that was never identified as such by the rabbis of the Talmud or the Rishonim may prove to be as capable of supporting radical innovation as it is of supporting existing viewpoints. I altered the definition of Oral Torah in the intro of that article (which had claimed that Oral law consists of things not in the written Torah but in the Mishnah and Talmud) to accommodate this concept of a late identification of Sinaitic law. I suspect other articles may need changes to accommodate it as well. There can certainly be an argument made against Feinstein's perspective, and also an argument that it doesn't apply to e.g. Torah reading, but it has had great influence. I would think that any contemporary discussion about whether a Mechitza is or isn't halakhic in origin or application would have to lay the viewpoint out and wrestle with it. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

who is a jew? edit
your edit to WIAJ was good, but now, in reading that third section, I have to wonder if that entire para is phrased right at all. It opens with the idea of how to ID jews who've walked or converted AWAY from the faith. However, it seems to end, again, with the Haredi assertion that only converts TO judaism who 'count' are those living orthodoxly. So to me, it seems the para 'turned left at Albequerque', to paraphrase Bugs Bunny. ThuranX 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again
Hi Joshua: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously  plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
 * User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)


 * I'm looking into the matter although I will say at minimum that I don't think the modification of the template constitutes "plagiarism." Whether this is part of the more general strategy of messianics to deliberately confuse matters is a separate issue and if the template is to do that then we have an issue with abuse of Wikipedia. However, it would seem to me that having a project on the topic and having a template would reduce rather than increase confusion about the topic. JoshuaZ 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maryville High School
Thanks for your protections of Maryville High School. Homer Croy has a reference. Albert David belongs but I can't find a formal reference (and so am keeping him off). Dale Carnegie does not belong (he moved before graduation). Sadly, the anonymous disruptions are achieving their effect. Americasroof 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Jellinek and his Christian son
Does anyone know what kind of "rabbi" and Torah scholar Adolf Jellinek was (Orthodox, Reform, none-of-the-above, all-of-the above?) The question is important because he had a son Georg Jellinek who supposedly became a Christian, and the article about him says that "Jellinek, the son of Adolf Jellinek, a rabbinical scholar, converted to Christianity." Making it sound that the alleged conversion of George Jellinek is somehow "enhanced" (like a "hidur mitzva - lehavdil) by the fact that he had a "rabbinical father." Anyhow, the portrait of Adolf doesn't look like it would make it into an ArtScroll anything right now :-} In addition, in the List of converts to Christianity from Judaism Georg Jellinek is listed and his picture features very prominently. If anyone has any more information on this, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. IZAK 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?
Hi JoshuaZ: On 25 October 2006, User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nough
I see that you appear to not appreciate my preference to encourage inclusion of all valid and cited schools. I may be much more alone in this preference than I suppose. I guess I find it sad that underfunded schools that just get by, but do play important roles in their communities are not currently considered valid for wikipedia. Maybe that will change someday, as things have over the past few years here in wikipedia. I have read your comments to this end regarding statements made in 2003 by Jimmy Wales. Regardless...keep up your hard work...Best, Kukini 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't an issue of valid, it is an issue of notable. There are all sorts of things in this world which should get recognition. There are people who come from rich countries and go risk their lives helping give out food in medicine in war torn countries. They should be honored and acknowledged. But that is not Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia. Similarly, I would agree that many underfunded schools do just get by and play important roles in their communities and that should be recgonized. But Wikipedia's job is not to recognize them. Not everything that is good or should be done should be done by Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not everything that is good or should be done should be done by Wikipedia." I ask you...why not? What harm is including all verifiable schools? Does it take up too much memory? I am not sure the rationale behind the passion to delete. Maybe if I understood better, I would join the forces of deletion. I dunno. -Kukini 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm generally in favor of the merger of such articles. But there are in general a variety of issues- 1) maintenance. School articles are some of the most heavility vandalized and recieving the most OTRS complaints and having many little school articles just exacerbates such problems. 2) General notability. One reason Wikipedia has even the tiny bit of credibility we have is because we have standards of inclusion which don't let random data get thrown in even if its verifiable (see for example, WP:PROF,WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. 3) Wikipedia is not a directory and many of these school articles end up not being any more than directories. To me at least these are the main reasons for reduction of school articles. JoshuaZ 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed and respectful responses. Best, Kukini 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I think there are about 5 other reaons that also argue for deletion but I don't think of them as highly (I'd discuss them now but right now I require sleep and will be more than happy if you want to discuss them at a later date). JoshuaZ 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Beit Hanoun article
Striver got an admin to undelete the two pictures. No actual discussion of the matter took place. You may want to talk to the admin and/or Striver. The idea that one of these pictures is fair use has some minimal plausibility (incorrect but I can see why soemoen might think it) but the idea that both of them are fair use in the same article is laughable. JoshuaZ 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The allegation that Striver just talked to an admin is not correct. I responded on the talk page for the article. --  tariq abjotu  16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to inform you...
I added another revert to the report. There are more, if you want them.--Vercalos 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Whoops!  Sorry about that..  I suppose my reversions were a little heavy handed.--Vercalos 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun incident may need protecting again.
It seems like editors are back to fighting over whether to include the picture. JoshuaZ 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessary, in my opinion. We ought to warn them about the 3RR (because this isn't really coming from all ends), and block them if they persist. --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who the "we" is in that sentence. At this point I'm a bit too involved an editor to be doing any blocking. I'll put a note on the talk page about 3RR which should get the point across. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe just "an admin." I might be too involved in this now too. Nevertheless, I warned Striver he's close to violating it (his 12:07 (UTC) edit counts as well, correct?). --  tariq abjotu  22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There's now a section regarding the article on WP:ANI. --  tariq abjotu  22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Email Contact
On your user page you ask blocked users to contact you by email but there is no email address given. What's up with that? This is a dynamic IP so please don't respond to it as I won't be able to see the response. 66.61.147.73 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the left hand side of every user page on Wikipedia is an option titled "E-mail this user". The option is right below "User contributions" in the toolbox set (under the search bar). If a user has an activated email account this allows them to contact the person in question. JoshuaZ 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

JfJ RFAr
Aye, but as I said, as far as what i've written, most of it is probably at least borderline quote mining in a more objective sense because I haven't been able to provide the diffs or much context :/. (September 13th in particular was a very hectic day on that talk page) Not that i'm trying to deliberatly misconstrue what people have been writing or anything, its just i'll have to confirm all of this if the case is accepted. Homestarmy 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps, though i'm still concerned that Paradox might get upset and do something that permanently cements the block :/. (Though, there seems to be so much consensus for it so far, it might be too late....) Homestarmy 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia
No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with civil but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me where?
Hey, kako si, na koji jezik hoces da pisem? sluzili Engleski? -> I assume you are Serbian so I would like to know in what language you prefer I write? But now to the matter, you are calling a simple list pov? Just tell me one thing, where do I repport you and your companions and hopefully get you shut off 4ever? And in what section should the repport be, vandals or what? My sincere regards Ancient Land of Bosoni


 * I'm afraid that I'm not Serbian. My ancestry is mainly Polish and Russian. You'll have a much  better chance at getting the article kept if you explain why it is a useful or necessary fork from the main list than by attacking editors. If you do feel some sort of need to report, I suggest you go to WP:ANI and continue the section you already started there. Please remember to refrain my making personal attacks. JoshuaZ 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You want a reason, okey I didn't registrate that earlier. Hmm let me see, okey got it, serb army soldiers make up about 95% of the war criminals prosecuted by ICTY. Hmm want more?..is that necessary? but well okey: hmm roughly 90% of the civilians killed in bosnia were bosniaks, and srebrenica is the worst killing in post-war europe. Ancient Land of Bosoni


 * And that justifies a separate list why? JoshuaZ 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your rv was a bit hasty
I hadn't finished writing my rationale on talk. Please respond on talk:Juan Cole. Cheers, &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Daniel's edit
I do appreciate how the whole thing is a scandal, but we do have to rely on secondary sources. I do sympathize with those who are having conniptions that a few Messianic Jews have shown up to claim their slice of the wikipedia pie; I can't really tell even if they Christian pretending to be Jews, Jews pretending to be Christians, or some third Way entirely. But if there's one thing to be learned from the history of Christianity, it's that persecuting an obscure cult only validates their world view and gives them notoriety and, after that, you'll never get rid of them. -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan
Wish I could - I read it somewhere (authoritive) but can I remember where? I do monitor a moderate Muslim list here in Australia, just to see what the community responce to various issues is, evolutionary thiest discussion with the creationists dominating. --Michael Johnson 02:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_Pakistan-related_topics. Guettarda 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You beat me by a few seconds
blocking, but you blocked much longer than I was going to anyway. —Doug Bell talk 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Subbing
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 07:54 1 December 2006 (GMT).
 * Thanks again. Should avoid nowikis now. Rich Farmbrough, 07:58 1 December 2006 (GMT).
 * Hmm. All live transclusions should get something done to them so that they eventually get human attention, even if that is to "nowiki" them. And I think all the nowiki's are being avoided, that example would be just before I made the change.  Your comments are most welcome, as they have improved  what's being done.  Rich Farmbrough, 09:27 1  December 2006 (GMT).

Edit summary
Yes, I meant to do that. I removed the words "All mainstream", which was, yet again, original research. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Greier
This user's block log is atrocious. He was blocked for a month in May for excessive 3RR and incivility and has had 5 more blocks since then (48 hours, 72 hours, two 1 week, and 2weeks). I know you just blocked him for a week, but what do you think about making that indefinite with a post to ANI as an exhaustion of the community's patience case? Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection if you wish to either adjust the block time or make the block indefinite. I don't have the time myself right now to look in detail at the user' record to decide if an indefinite block is advisable. JoshuaZ 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Le Star Du Barn

 * Thanks. Moving to my barnstar page. JoshuaZ 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

user:highfructosecornsyrup sock puppet?
Hi, I read your comments on this user's talk page. I recently joined in a deletion discussion for trinity college of biblical studies where one user had written the self promoting article and was resorting to afd vandalism to obstruct the process. Suddenly after a drawn out vandalism battle this user pops up to dispute the deletion of the article. Alan.ca 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any apriori reason to suspect that Highfructose is some particular past editor that has been problematic. Nor do I see any evidence that he is violating WP:SOCK. I strongly doubt that fructose has anythign to do with the vandalism. Therefore his sock status is not very relevant. JoshuaZ 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read the NPOV page. 2wice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.217.128 (talk • contribs).

ISM semi-prot
It looked like a combination of vandalism and 3RR violations to me; would you like me to remove it? Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comprise/Compose
Sorry if I'm not responding in the right place; I'm not extremely familiar with this whole system. What I do know, though, is the difference between comprise and compose. The whole comprises its parts, and the parts compose the whole. So in the case of the sentence in question, the correct term is compose.

"Which specific evolutionary theories (ie, Macroevolution and Microevolution) conflict with their concept of creationism, and would therefore COMPOSE 'evolution', can vary from creationist to creationist."

The theories (parts) COMPOSE evolution (whole). I've changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.199.148 (talk • contribs).


 * You're right. My bad. Sorry about that. JoshuaZ 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you protect user:cplot talk page
Hello JoshuaZ, could you please explain why you blocked user cplot only method of communication on wikipedia. Previously he was blocked indefinatelly from editing articles and other pages but now you have removed his right to even speak out on his own talk page. I would like to assume good faith which is why I am asking you this question prior to go any further. --CyclePat 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He did not seem to be using it in a productive fashion but rather to soapbox. If you think some benefit will come from my unprotecting the page I will do so. JoshuaZ 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wire pics
Its still up to is to say what source is reliable and how much. Its the metatruth that we cant get around it. Wire pics are not necessary to be UNreliable but arent always reliable either. the AP and Reuters have earned skeptic attitude especially for Israel issues for faking many things lately including the photoshop smoke over beirut the junkyard cars as missle targets now this. Photographer himself was detained for working with the terrorism. Its a verifiable fact SO we can say in the cap, photographer whos detained for working with the terrorism says this is a street with filling of blood from the shelling.Opiner 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian
Good suggestion. I managed to find one wikipedian Hungarian-English translator who seems active in the last few weeks, and left a note at User talk:Marcika. Of course, if this source says the guy did not exist, I would still think we'd want an article on him just to debunk the myth. -- Kendrick7talk 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation
I reverted Joshua Z to last version by Nielswik.Goin Back 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to go now,(someone else needs the computer). I'll explain more tomorrow.Goin Back 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review AN/I before unclocking or any other Cplot sockpuppets
He's been doing the same vandalism for a week now. --Tbeatty 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm aware. The reason for the comment was that an advocate for him (see above) objected to my locking Cplot's talk page. If he wants to talk to use throuhg one talk page I'm willing to give him 1 edit to redeem himself. Otherwise I'll just reprotect (it is annoying that the ISP doesn't seem willing to do anything). JoshuaZ 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD + Vote for deletion
If the nomination is already a vote, then the military stuff up for vote today is using "Chicago style" voting. The person is nominating, then voting "delete per nomination", take a peek. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you take this up on ANI for someone to look at please? I'm literally about to go to bed. JoshuaZ 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain Revision
Please explain your reversion of my edit of the Torah umadda article.

My user page
Thanks for cleaning up my user page. I think the user involved actually had a legitimate point. The content he complained of in the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah article had POV problems and was unsourced -- in some past flurry of edits it looks like the source it originally had was removed. I replaced with a toned-down version of the original passage and restored the source. FYI, User:Jayrav wrote suggesting freezing the article. I believe that compared to the daily-plus vandalism that strikes articles like Who is a Jew and Bible, this article's problems with POV editors are comparatively mild. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
While 3RR is a very good rule, doesn't WP have a policy of rules are meant to be broken when they are being abused? This user is a sock-puppet of a banned user who had another sock already banned today. I won't edit anymore, but he is disruptive to all that Wiki stands for. Yossiea 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you perform a checkuser on me?
I have been very upset by accusations by User:Osgoodelawyer that I and User:Mikebe are the same person. He refuses to retract this accusation despite me giving my word that it is not true. In essence he is calling me a liar.

Could you please perform a checkuser on me to prove that this is unture. I have nothing to hide and am prepared to undergo any check to prove this allegation false. I will provide any information you request.

I am a man of princple and being called a liar disturbs me deeply. I can easily be identified from my userid - the same as my email id - and these accusations of dishonesty and subterfuge could seriously harm my reputation. User:Osgoodelawyer refuses to discuss it further and I am left unable to defend myself.Patto1ro 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
In regards to you correcting my misperception of NPOV as Vandalism, Sorry will keep an eye out for that in the future.... I thought i was classifying it wrong, but to me it looked like someone was debating the articles wording and changed it without any discussion on the talk page as far as i could see, thank you for correcting me  ScorpO 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Email reply
First of all, thank you for the prompt response to my email. Unfortunately this is not a dispute type of situation per se. This is a major problem that has occurred as a result of WP's "anybody can edit" policy. Of course, this problem was never intended in this policy, but nevertheless it has occurred. If you foresee having time to look into this more before the end of the year, I would be happy to send you examples of the problem. Thanks again. Mikebe 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Patto1ro
I do believe he has violated WP:SOCK by voting with both accounts in AfDs. The votes did not affect the outcome, however, so there is no basis for a checkuser. Similarities in edits (in many cases, both accounts have made the very same edits, including blatantly anti-American ones), and the fact that the two users showed up one day after the other (August 23 and 24). Also, for two users with so much in common, they did not communicate with each other at all, that is, until I suggested that Patto1ro use one account, after which he made an edit summary which spoke directly to Mikebe, to the point of even using his username, which I find very suspicious. As I mentioned to Patto1ro, there is not enough for me to be 100% sure, and not enough for me to have a checkuser performed. As for claims that his "reputation" is at stake, I highly doubt it. I never made the accusation in public, other than comments on his talk page (he's the one who has repeatedly commented on it in article talk pages in order to goad me on). Basically, nobody would have known about the accusation without his advertising of it. I also did not add a suspected sockpuppet tag to either userpage. Basically, I considered the issue at an end days ago. He wouldn't let it be, however, even going so far as to practically spam my talk page with requests for an apology. I finally had to respond saying that I do still personally think that the two are one person. I did not offer an "apology", though, as what he really wants is for me to admit that I was wrong, not an apology per se, and I'm afraid I cannot change my feelings on this issue. I regret accusing him of sockpuppetry before having enough to go to a checkuser. It was not a prudent thing to do. I have attempted to let the issue go, but as you can see, to no avail. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, after my accusation, he immediately accused me of being User:Goethean (which I assume he has since figured out is not true—no apology, however, was given :). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for making a joke. Didn't you get the irony? I never thought you were Goethean. Though from reading some of your comments here it does seem as if it was he who initiated your involvement.

There I've apologised. How about some reciprocation?Patto1ro 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits
Anti-American edits (that is, removing anything US-related from beer articles) pretty much describes the whole effort of both users. basically, anything that's related to the USA, even if it is well-noted as such, is removed (what should be done is non-American information added to balance). They have a WP:OWN issue, but it's not that they feel they own the articles, it's that they feel that Europe owns everything to do with beer other than American-style lager (so no American opinion is valid). Pay attention to edit summaries as well. Here are a couple clear ones:

Mikebe
 

Patto1ro
 

The following are just the Beer Judge Certification Program-related edits (which was put up for AfD by Mikebe).

Patto1ro
      

Mikebe
    

I admit that there's no reason why two people could not have the same opinion on this issue. But the fact that both showed up one day apart and both edit only beer-related articles makes it very suspicious. └ OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This looks to me a) like enough info for a checkuser request and b) looks like a content dispute more than anything else. I don't see anything blatantly POV with either version of the articles but I don't know much about beer. I suggest you use WP:DR. JoshuaZ 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't a content dispute (although clearly there is a point of view being expressed). I honestly don't care that much about the removals, I got involved because someone else brought the situation to my attention. If that person wants to take it to WP:DR, he can do so himself.  I'm only speaking to you on this matter because you asked me questions regarding my sockpuppet accusations. Unless there is real reason to perform a checkuser (such as votestacking or 3RR violations) I won't attempt to initiate one. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

checkuser
I will be very happy to cooperate with your checkuser procedure. Whatever you would like me to do, I will do. In return, I would like it agreed that if the checkuser proves that we are indeed two different people, that Osgood makes a public apology for insulting Ron Pattinson (I suggest that the apology be posted to the Beer Project talk page) and an apology to me (in the same place) for acting in bad faith -- i.e., suspecting sockpuppetry for no other reason than we don't agree with him. Mikebe 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but that is not the reason. I had not even been paying attention to the beer pages until someone pointed out the content dispute he was having with you two. I, looking at the history of both of your contributions, your editing style, and the conspicuous account creation dates, thought it likely that you were the same person (the user himself did not ever consider that you were the same person).  Also, checkusers are generally not granted at the request of the suspected sockpuppets to "clear their names". └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand this: you take no responsibility at all for this? Calling Ron Pattinson a liar and cheat was the idea of some unnamed other user? And now that you seem to realise that this was done in bad faith on your part, you're trying to dump the blame on someone else? And your "blatant anti-American" edits -- you don't notice that almost all the edits are for BJCP style guides? Deleting BJCP style guides which have absolutely NO BUSINESS in an encyclopedia is "anti-American"? The BIG problem here is that YOU received a tip-off from an unnamed user and without any serious investigation you called Ron a liar and cheat and then call us "anti-American"!! Well, I think you have no business handling situations like this because you don't know how to. Mikebe 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A liar and a cheat? I said he was also another user. Period.  As for blaming another person, I don't know where you came up with that.  I in fact stated just above that the other user had NO belief that there was sockpuppetry going on.  He informed me of a content dispute. Try to pay attention.  However, you are correct, most of the edits are BJCP-related, but you should also note that not all of them are.  In addition, you have also, on at least two occasions, basically said "I'm from Europe so I know more than you, American, I suggest you keep your nose out of real beer articles" to another user.  If that's not anti-American (and bloody arrogant) I don't know what is. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

osgoodelawyer
I suggest that we keep this conversation based on fact, not on hysterical accusations. To begin, you posted on Ron's talk page the following: "You are undoubtedly the same person as User:Mikebe. Since you have voted in AfDs with both accounts, you are violating WP:SOCK. I will kindly ask you to choose one account to edit with. Further use of both accounts may result in me having to take administrative action against you. And we don't want that. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

Ron replies: "I am not the same person as Mikeb. My name is Ronald Pattinson, born 19.10.1956 in Newcastle upon Tyne. Ask Mikeb what his name is. I can guarantee he and I are different people."

Your reply is: "An intelligent conscientious user would simply admit his error in judgment and turn to editing the encyclopedia with one account. I'd like a neutral point of view to be presented in beer articles which presents both the European and American views, without discounting either side. But if you want to pretend that you are not Mikebe, so be it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)"

You have clearly called him a liar. Ron says he is not me and you respond "if you want to pretend".

All of this by you is without a shred of evidence, just your "hunch". I would like to remind you of WP's assume good faith policy. Why did you instead assume bad faith? I would also like to draw your attention to WP:EQ of which you have violated almost every policy: assume good faith, respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them, avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, etc.

As for "blaming another person", didn't you write this: "I had not even been paying attention to the beer pages until someone pointed out the content dispute he was having with you two."

OK, so you now admit we are two people and not one, as you charged. May I remind you of WP's suggestion: "Be prepared to apologize." After calling Ron a liar and cheat and now conceding you were wrong, why don't you apologise?

You also accuse me of: "In addition, you have also, on at least two occasions, basically said "I'm from Europe so I know more than you, American, I suggest you keep your nose out of real beer articles" to another user." This is precisely what I call an hysterical accusation. We both know that I never wrote any such thing! Because this quote is so far from anything I have ever written, I am having trouble finding what you are referring to. However, I assume it is this: "My friend, I find it very strange that you think you know more than someone who is local to these beers." Do you see any similarity between what you said and what I actually said? Furthermore you conveniently leave out that I wrote that after someone told me I was wrong about a Belgian beer.

And finally, I would like to point out that this entire dispute consists of one single editor who, in your words, was having a "content dispute" with us. So, that brings you to a total of two -- two editors who have unilaterally decided policy for the beer articles. You noted also that you "hadn't been paying attention to the beer pages..." Apparently, neither had Goethean, the complaining editor I assume you referred to, because if either of you had, you would see that we, the rest of the editors had already discussed this very subject here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Isn.27t_Wikipedia_supposed_to_be_an_encyclopedia.3F

Please apologise to Ron for accusing him of lying, please stopping making policy for the beer pages that you have no right to make and please learn the meaning of "assume good faith." Thank you. Mikebe 09:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, for fuck's sake. I'll apologize for accusing without proof.  Of course, any checkuser request (which, JoshuaZ has already agreed would be warranted in this case due to circumstances) is an accusation without proof, and even a negative checkuser result does not absolve the user(s) of the suspicion.  And checkusers are performed very often around here, so I guess there must be a lot of apologizing going on here (there generally isn't).  You want an apology?


 * I am wholeheartedly apologetic for accusing Patto1ro of sockpuppetry without enough to go to a checkuser. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apololgy. That wasn't so hard, was it? But you still haven't apolgised for calling me a liar, or admitted that you were wrong. But I suppose it's the best I'm going to get from you. And I've already wasted far too much time on this crap.


 * I've only just read this because I was in London for the British Guild of Beer Writers annual dinner. I took the opportunity to bring up the wikipedia beer pages with other writers - Tim Webb, Podge, Martyn Cornell and the guy who brews for The Durden Park Beer Circle (I can't remember his name) amongst others. The most compliementary comment was "very poor". When I explained my attempts to improve the articles and the resulting arguments, to a man they said "why are you wasting your time on it". Who am I to argue with such acknowledged beer experts? I really do have much better things to do: putting together a proposal for CAMRA books, processing the brewing logs of the Barclay Perkins and Reid breweries I copied from their archives, extracting statistics from 19th century German brewing magazines, to name but a few of my many projects.


 * So goodbye wikipedia. I would like to say that it's been a great experience. But you know that I'm not a liar. I would like to say that I've been impressed by the knowledge and willingness to cooperate of my fellow editors (see preceding comment). I hope that one day someone with more determination than I will come along and make the beer articles worthy of praise rather than ridicule.Patto1ro 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will tell Ron as he has left Wikipedia specifically because of your actions. Now, would you please either provide evidence of the "blatant anti-American" edits you accused both of us or apologise for that as well. Mikebe 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already provided such evidence, although I suppose it is somewhat more a display of arrogance in European superiority than specifically anti-Americanism. Furthermore, your reiteration of one of the comments I was referring to above left out the second sentence, it reads:


 * My friend, I find it very strange that you think you know more than someone who is local to these beers. As I demonstrated to you, your Tripel page was full of errors. I hope you are happy with it now. I find it pretty insulting that a foreigner tells me I don't know my own culture.


 * This presupposes that someone not local to the Netherlands or Belgium (I would argue that those are separate cultures, and that you are also a foreigner to Belgian culture, albeit certainly not nearly as foreign as an American) must obviously have less knowledge of that culture (and we're speaking of a specific section of the culture, not the culture in its entirely) than a native. While this is probably going to be true in the majority of cases (particularly when speaking about the culture in general), it is still very often not the case (in particular when speaking of a section of the culture that one from elsewhere may have studied in great detail—think Christian American expert on Jewish history, for instance).  That said, I'm feeling awfully generous this morning, so I'll even apologize for that: I apologize for claiming that you are anti-American; it is clearly just natural arrogance. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I just have to comment about this. There is a region in Europe called "Benelux", it is, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgh.  There is a tentency by Americans to assume that European states have wildly different cultures, but actually, cultures tend to be fluid, and ignore national borders.  The Netherlands and those regions of Germany close to the Netherlands actually all celebrate Karnival, and Bavarian regions of German hardly know about Karnival at all.  My sister living in Limburg actually lives 1km from German, and less than 5km from Belgium, where she actually goes in order to have her riding material repaired.  The implication that Belgium and the Netherlands have seperate cultures simply by factor of them being seperate countries is as naive as claiming that Belgium speaks a distinct language all its own. --Puellanivis 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware of the use of the term "Benelux", and obviously the cultures are close, but yes, indeed, because they are separate countries that does give them separate cultures. If northern and southern California (yes, sections of a single US state) can be considered to have different cultures, then surely Belgium and the Netherlands can be considered to have different cultures.  Surely Flanders and Wallonia themselves are considered to be distinct enough to be culturally different.  But this is all really beside the point. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, speaking of arrogance. Yes, we Europeans are stupid. Thank god you Americans can tell us how our own cultures work. Mikebe 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO!!! Seriously, some of my countrymen (I'm American) can be bone stupid, arrogant, and aggressively stupid. I avoid those types and stick with the nice people in the middle and left of our political spectrum ;) (note: there's wackos on the extreme fringe left too; avoidance is recommended as well) E. Sn0 = 31337 = Talk 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Henry F. Schaefer, III
I have now heard from Fritz through his admin officer and I think the problem is settled. They may try to add more biographical material but I have advised them this might be copyrighted as it was a copy of his web page, and that I will add some of it in a different form sometime. User:Cdajmk is his admin officer and she was not trying to be devious or sinister and just created her own account to do what he asked her to do. Could you please remove the block on her? I should advise of my possible COI here. I had a 5 month sabbatical in Fritz' group in 1990 and collaborated with him for several years after that publishing 9 research papers. I have very great respect for him as a chemist and none as a creationist (although I note from his book that he accepts the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the earth and is rather weakly saying evolution does not seem right and ID may be the answer). I still do not know what they think is inaccurate about the article, but if they tell me I'll discuss it on the talk page and not try to edit the article in case you think I do have a COI. --Bduke 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Off the wagon
I don't remember editing this article, nor am I interested in it. Just thought I'd let you know. See you around Wikipedia and have a great day. &mdash;  Ed Gl  03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A DB-Bio Article
Hello JoshuaZ, this db-bio article has been up for quite a long time. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. ;-) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. That was fast. How many people are watching my talk page? JoshuaZ 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, seems like more than a handful :P...<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, I saw it on Recent changes. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes me feel better. JoshuaZ 06:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch
Could you please Protect the Chabad-Lubavitch page (and any others you deem necessary). TrachtGut insists on editing that page (and others) in accordance with his POV. A number of his edits overturned the products of previous consensus. I agree that much of the Yechi article and others must be properly sourced. But he is doing much more than removing "unsourced" material. I have asked him numerous times to explain himself on the talk page and seek consensus. He refuses. He is new to Wikipedia, and doesn't understand the rules. Please help. --Meshulam 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically the Chabad-Lubavitch article. He has a POV (which is understandable), but he insists on erasing anything that does not comport with that POV. I have asked him several times to use the talk page, both in edit summaries and on his talk page, but to no avail. --Meshulam 04:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rat Tail
Dr. Collins really does have a rat tail. I had class with him on Wednesday and I saw it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.37.148 (talk • contribs)
 * Um, this is really weird, Joshua, but I recognized the above IP immediately. I went to Messiah College. You don't happen to go there, do you? -Patstuarttalk 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nvm, you were just reverting vandalism. -Patstuarttalk 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev
Hey Joshua,

I just checked up on the Pisgat Ze'ev back-and-forth, and I'm pretty sure that the place shouldn't be classified in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict any more than other parts of East Jerusalem. As for categorising it as an Israeli settlement (despite the definition - which I believe should be updated), I understood the action on Hamas (being categorised as "designated terrorist" instead of "terrorist") and elsewhere to be reflective of a convention where we make mention of a disputed aspect of an entry without categorising it as such. As Pisgat Ze'ev was annexed by Israel in 1980 (East Jerusalem, Jerusalem Law) and is administered as part of Jerusalem and not considered a settlement by Israel, I feel that it is sufficiently disputed that mention without categorisation is sufficient. Contrast with everywhere else currently in the Category:Israeli settlements, essentially any Israeli area in the West Bank outside Jerusalem, recognised by Israel as an "Israeli settlement." I'm in a [paused] back and forth on Talk:Har Homa on the issue, and I'm working towards getting a clarification of categorisation criteria. Well, let me know in any event. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keeps
I respectfully disagree. If you'd like to relist any of the discussions so they can be conducted in an atmosphere of good faith, I have absolutely no objection. You may also wish to discuss merges with the user who created those articles (if Innosense is notable but its members aren't, merge/redirects would be easy and clean solutions). But User:MinervaSimpson was clearly acting in bad faith with those noms, and the deletion process isn't there for vengeance. (FWIW, I'd have voted delete on four of the five articles myself.) | Mr. Darcy talk 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this discussion on MrDarcy's talk page and felt like saying I wouldn't mind that the idea of changing members into redirects is possibly a nice clean idea. (Though in the case with Jenny Morris I wonder if that'd be confusing as it would be a redirect connect wiht a disambig page.)  And in all honest I'm still wondering if I should put Lynn Harless up for AfD.  My reasons being that when I created that article, I thought she actually was a member of the band.  Since I'm wrong, she has little notability other than relations.  (Well there's that and non-notable celebrity gossip).  Perhaps AfDs for the band members to redirects, and an AfD for deletion of Lynn Harless? -WarthogDemon 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Or All?
Is it uncommon for only some of the people in a band to have pages, and others not? I have created articles for three of the five members of innosense. (They're the three that have come to question.) As for the other two however, they have done things after disbanding. One, Mandy Ashford has been in several publications, and the other Nikki DeLoach has had notability even prior to Innosense. It may be my sight OCD of all or nothing; but since two of the members look notable enough, could that be support of the other three? (Not trying to sound biased.) I could also try to do further research on the other three. (I may have luck with Amanda Latona at the very least.) My only concerns are my results being fancruft... -WarthogDemon 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reisman
Although I reverted you, I don't intend to discourage you from continuing. I just want us to be pathologically careful to be extraordinarily careful on all WP:BLP situations, particularly when the article has been under dispute for quite some time. Unfortunately, I am out of time tonight, so I can't help more, but tomorrow I will drop in and see what I can do myself.--Jimbo Wales 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. It means a lot to me. :) As I am sure you can imagine, these are touchy issues and I really appreciate when people stick their necks out to help.--Jimbo Wales 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

100
Why thank you. ;-) Though funnily (word?) enough, the same thing happened around when I hit 10 too! :) -WarthogDemon 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments you made to me
Regardless of whether you consider this vandalism, this is your "talk" page, not your myspace page, so I feel entitled to say things to you, regardless of their positivie or negative perception. That said, I would like to comment about a message you left for me. You seemed to have jumped into a discussion in its late throws and assumed yourself to be right. You undid quite a few of my edits that had nothing to do with what you disagreed with, and then threatened me with your adminstrative prevliges(sp) for reverting my edits you seemingly blindly removed. I am not saying this to vandalize you, or your page, or anything of that sort, but I feel it is appropriate you be responded to for having done such things, and for what appears to me as an abuse of your power. Thank you, DerwinUMD 00:08 December 11, 2006 (UTC) P.S. sorry for posting on your page, ment to do that here (thought I was here).DerwinUMD 00:16 December 11, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I'll do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC regarding US POV in beer article
Once again, I would like to thank you very much for your fairness in handling the matter of Osgoodelawyer. A similar issue has come up again and I would be very grateful if you would simply add your voice to the RFC. Briefly, it is about having only US comments about a non-US beer, despite the fact that other countries make a similar beer. You can comment here. Thanks. Mikebe 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Isaac/Ignatz Lichtenstein is back.
Hi JoshauZ: See Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (2nd nomination). Thanks. IZAK 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offer on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
Sound like a good idea to me. Any idea how we can get more users involved? ==  Taxico  11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. File an RfC maybe? JoshuaZ 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

An RfC was already filed. That's how I got to the page. There seems to an informal mediation here, but I don't know if it has been accepted. ==  Taxico  17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dembski edit by MathChem271828
The edit on Dembski was to make you aware that I see that the ID argument is the focus of your and monk's edits on the biographies of scientists. I think that we can all agree that ID is a bunch of malarky. It doesn't make you or Monk intellectuals to crusade about telling everyone that creationism isn't real. *However* there happen to be A VERY FEW scientists who hold those beliefs and they should be FORGIVEN for having those odd beliefs because their net contribution has been quite positive. Please pass this on to your friend monk and whoever else.

I put this to you after I have already pointed out that the entire religious belief thing is irrelevant to the article about someone's contribution to science.

People's religious beliefs are relevant when we are a) trying to make general biographies not just list their scientific accomplishments and b) are well known for their religious beliefs (although both Schaefer and Demsbki would argue that what they are doing in those regards is science). There is absolutely no way one can argue that Dembski has done anything at all notable except for his intelligent design work- are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article on him for that reason? Finally, please see WP:ARCHIVE and consider archiving comments rather than blanking them- this will make it much easier for other users if they want to later read an exchange to read what happened- at minimum, blanking a section when you are still discussing it is both rude and inconvenient since it forces anyone replying to start yet another section to reply. JoshuaZ 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm blanking it because I'd rather talk about it on your page. And no someone's religion isn't relevant when that person is notable for being a scientist and not a theologian. --mathchem271828 Suppse you were well known for being a race car driver. Would your religious beliefs be part of your biography? No. Here look at this race car driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Andretti

And yes Dembski's article should be removed if he isn't notable as a scientist.


 * If you would rather have this discussion on my talk page then I suggest you move my comments over there (this will be my last comment here per your remark above. I will presume that you will put any further responses on that page and that you have added my talk page to your [[Wikipedia:Watchlist|Watchlist). Now to respond, I think you are missing the point in a variety of ways - 1) among the general public Schaeffer is notable for his (as you put it) "religious views" (indeed, I suspect that far more people have heard of him for his work involving intelligent design than chemistry and google gives a rough confirmation of this- see [1] and [2]. Second, regarding your race car example Andretti isn't notable for his religious beliefs(although they in fact should be briefly noted in the article if we could find a source for what religion he was) but if he spent his time preaching about them or was a posterboy for some religious idea or movement that would be extensively discussed in his article whether or not you thought he should be "forgiven" for it. Third, regarding Dembski the relevant issues for whether or not someone is notable or not is not whether or not they are notable "as a scientists" but rather whether the person is notable according the general biography guidelines or the general academic notability guidelines which Dembski meets. I hope that makes things clear. JoshuaZ 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am not sure if these biography guidelines are written in stone or if they are up for debate. It seems that some of these guidelines are subject to revision. Also, I cannot stress how incorrect you are about someone like Schaeffer's religious views being more prominent in the public eye than his science work. Mathchem271828


 * Simply asserting that Schaefer's religious views are not more prominent in the public eye and telling me you "cannot stress how incorrect" I am doesn't make me incorrect it isn't an argument merely an assertion. If you have evidence that Schaefer is much better known by the public for his chemistry work I'd be happy to see it (I wish he were better known for his chem work but he isn't as the above google hits pretty easily demonstrate and I can give many more similar google hit examples to use another - Henry +Schaeffer + chemist gets about as many hits as Henry + Schaeffer + "intelligent design"). Even if his science work were more prominent it wouldn't reduce the very prominent nature of his religious work. As to changing the guidelines - WP:BIO has probably more of a consensus behind it than any other notability guideline, and if anything ever changes it it would be most likely become more inclusive not less so. It also isn't clear to me under what criterion you would like to exclude Demsbki- that he argues for something you disagree with or think is stupid? That can't be a reasonable notable criterion. JoshuaZ 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it's important that you stop being so legalistic in your arguments and recognize that the goal of wikipedia should be to provide information that may sometimes be inaccessible to a basic search engine. To some degree, this has something to do with one's opinion about what sort of information this thing should provide.  Wikipedia shoudn't be a gossip column but a decent source of information with thoughtful explinations that might augment classroom learning, for instance.  Now how many students are involved in discussions of ID at school?  I'd say a few people are wasting their time with this nonsene.  But the majority of schools teach science, math, sociology, history (ect.)  The information on wikipedia should reflect an academic mindset.


 * I'm not being legalistic and I agree that Wikipedia should be able to provide information not accessible by a basic search engine. That doesn't mean that that is the only thing we should provide- of course Wikipedia shouldn't be a "gossip column" which is why we have strict rules about verifiability with reliable sources along with our biographies of living people policy - none of which changes the fact that Schaeffer is known by the general public for his ID work, he has written much about it and he continues to talk about it. And no, Wikipedia should not "reflect an academic mindset" completely- while on matters of science we give a strong weight to the scientific point of view and that is correct it would be bad to simply ignore or dismiss other points of view especially when those points of view are in fact attempting to alter and control what is taught in class rooms (see Kitzmiller v. Dover among other things). This is whether you like it or not a major political issue and we can't simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that Schaeffer isn't involved in it when he is. (Also, please sign your comments- you can do so by putting four tildes in a row - ~ which will leave your username and time of edit like this: JoshuaZ 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Google searching for Schaefer, are you aware that scientifically he always seems to call himself "Fritz Schaefer" or just "H. F. Schsefer III", while for his religious lectures he is billed as "Henry F. Schaefer III"? I'm not even sure he does it consciously but he does it. Note for example, the references I added to articles in the volume of Journal of Physical Chemistry A dedicated to him - it is "Fritz" all the way, not a mention of "Henry". --Bduke 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed. That is interesting and I do wonder why he does that(I would naively guess that for scientists they don't care whether someone is Fritz or not but what the results are in contrast in religious contexts he needs an impressive name like "Henry F. Schaefer III). but it but doesn't seem to change much. See  (only a few hundred hits) and  (which makes his number of chem hits to be about twice his number of ID hits so the basic point still stands) and this is even using just "chemistry" (and a few of these hits are in fact ID or creationism related). JoshuaZ 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My Redirect of year 3000 some
WOW! All the other years do that. It was fine for two weeks but now its not? Wow. forget wikipeida. All you 'admins' must get really board since you don't have a real life.

Later. BTW put the redirect back, or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupsportz (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 December 2006

Question on math typing in wikipedia
I haven't been able to figure out an answer to my question so I'd thought I'd ask you, the only admin I know. Does wikipedia take LaTeX input and parse it or does it use MathML only? Thanks! Mathchem271828 19:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to go over to WikiProject Mathematics, the people there might be able to help you. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is the Manual of Style (mathematics) which might be helpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mathchem271828 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser result
You said: ''A checkuser was performed on the two users in question. They seem to be unrelated''


 * Not that I disagree that they're not related, but where's this checkuser? └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin opinion needed
Hi Joshua: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Our university research committee approved the project.

Thanks, Corey 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW
Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou
Hi Joshua: Latest chutzpah at Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullying tone in edit comment
In reverting homeopathy you write "Lee, you've already have multiple 3RR violations don't make this another one." I just wanted to comment that the threatening tone of your comment is inappropriate for an administrator, particularly one who is, himself, enthusiastically engaged in reverting the article in question. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 13:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future.  (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though!  It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars.  I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not.  If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship.  The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber.  Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.)  Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus
Hi Joshua: I received the following message, perhaps you can assist. Thanks. IZAK 10:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Izak,


 * I've been involved in a discussion with a christian editor at Judaism's view of Jesus who is holding to the fairly common christian interpretation that Judaism and christianity are pretty much the same thing and therefore the article should reflect christian views as well. I'm enjoying the conversation, since the editor (Just nigel) is more restrained than some, but I'll be away for a few days between now and the weekend. If you're interested, the discussion is at the bottom of the talk page. Dbratton 10:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (crossposted to Jon513)

Your edit summary
Regarding Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Civility and No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.<! Jedermann 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus
Hi Joshua: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks, IZAK 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:


 * 1) No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
 * 2) WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
 * 3) So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
 * 4) What will members of other projects, such as WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
 * 5) Note: WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
 * 6) It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
 * 7) Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi Joshua: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 is at it again
Here's his latest sockpuppet address: 169.132.18.248 Can you please do something about it? Thanks. Yossiea 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I softblocked Daniel's IP. - crz crztalk 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes sir!
Watched. Traveling some? Gonna have fun in your vacation? - crz crztalk 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Enjoy. Let me know when you determine where it is you're going to go. I say, NYU. Then I would take you to dinner, like, multiple times. And buy you drinks. Several. Because I like you. - crz crztalk 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing
I was the third editor to call his edits vandalism not the first and I have written to 2 of his accounts explaining myself, which is more than you have done, or those other editors. What on earth are you criticisiong me for. you've opicked the wrong chap, go and hassle the sock, SqueakBox 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays !
You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday. StuRat 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Three pilgrim festivals" vs. "Three pilgrimage festivals"
Hi JoshuaZ: Question: What should be the name for the Shalosh Regalim: the Three pilgrim festivals or the Three pilgrimage festivals? Please see the discussion at Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals. Thanks you. IZAK 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments
See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot. Thanks, IZAK 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rambam was a "Muslim" for a while?
Hi JosshauZ: Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat. " I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hi JoshuaZ. You had asked me to notify you if I did an RfA. Wanted to let you know that I did, see Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. It doesn't look like the nomination is going to succeed, but the opposition is mostly mild and reasonable, suggesting I get a bit more experience, work with more areas of Wikipedia, and come back in a few months. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardal
Need some help here with some pretty clear violations of WP:V. Plus, the editor over there who has essentially taken the position that the rules are annoying and that they don't apply to him acts quite a lot like Daniel575 used to act. I don't know what should be done about that, but I figured you were the right person to talk to about it. --Meshulam 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged everything like you asked. But basically everything is not verified.--Meshulam 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

5th American Nihilist Underground Society AFD
The article has basically been rewritten and each line is sourced. This current debate is put up by another admin (I think) to cover issues with sourcing. Since you weighed in before (and are an admin) I thought you'd be interested in this latest one. --TrollHistorian 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
You have to come at their level, as we are all at their level. You can't act snooty, as we tend to. Even I do. But I realize because of an experience with a Christian, or just seeing the video game, "Left Behind: External Forces", has driven him to believe that Christians are about hate. I try my best not to, but its hard. Sadly, you can often find me making a bad example of Christianity, like when I get involved with politics, and defending others. I want to explain this to you, I want people to know this. We will never stop all violence and hate, but we've got to try. I may not make sense to you or many other people. I'm not the smartest person, that's for sure, but I try to help those who got a bad impression on Christianity, so that they don't want to rid the world of it. My Lord tells us to share this good word to others, and that's what I'm trying to do.


 * Thanks, Yancyfry

In fact, I am excited that I had did this, and got a message from him. You can check it out. That's what I was talking about, I made an impression on him. That's what Christians are supposed to leave on people. I don't care if he or anyone else reads this. I'm not embarrassed. I did what my Lord has asked of me. -Yancyfry

Thanks
Thanks. I sent you mail. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution award
And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? Still a hot topic! ..dave souza, talk 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave (moving award onto stuff page). JoshuaZ 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist scientists
Henry F. Schaefer, III is a very good scientist. Does he subscribe to biblical literalism? biblical inerrancy? Does he work in an area where these beliefs overlap with his research? (obviously not). And I asked for 5, currently living and preferably currently active. --Filll 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be very hard to meet the challenge. It was to make a point. raspor is claiming that you can have the supernatural intervene constantly in science and it will not harm science so we are all just atheists for not wanting the supernatural in science.--Filll 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Recombination Article
JoshuaZ-- You removed my addition to this article because you said it constituted "Creationist POV" (I am guessing that Wesley Elsberry told you this and you believed him.)  It is not creationist POV and another editor (Serephine) concurs with me that the definition of "information" needs to be elucidated to return my sentence to NPOV status. I have done this with an authoritative statement from Crick regarding the definition of biological information. Please also read my support for inclusion of the added sentence on the article Talk Page. Please add my sentence that you removed back into the article. Thanks. Afdave 12:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) David W. Hawkins

Conservative Halakha
Hi! In Talk:Conservative Halakha, I made claim that some previous edits were WP:OR on grounds that the Talmudic basis cited for procedurally abolishing mamzerut wasn't the actual basis given in the Conservative responsum involved. This seems to be a source of extensive conflict about this content because some editors have quoted from the Teshuvah involved (which appears to lay out a theory as to when the Conservative movement can and/or should abolish Biblical law) as "evidence" that in a pinch the Conservative movement sometimes will behave in a Reform-like fashion. If you believe that I am incorrect in the specific factual claim that the responsum doesn't contain and/or rely on the material cited, please let me know. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List of religions and religious denominations
The ultimate point of the list I created above, which is still far from complete, is to make it a featured list. You will note that it is generally referenced, which the List of religions is not. I expect to be gathering additional data for it over the weekend, and when that is accomplished I think that we will be better able to see more closely what the final result will be. In time, it probably will be broken up into subpages as the other list is already. I also believe that several denominations mentioned in the book referenced may not yet have their own pages here, and having the list available and updated regularly as I encounter pages will let me know which of them don't. I am in the long and laborious process of assessing all the articles for projects which do assessments which are listed on the WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion page, and ensuring that the pages of all the faiths which do have their own pages are listed there as well. You will note that it is not yet linked anywhere, so it probably isn't much of a distration yet. Alternately, I could move it into userspace and assemble it there. In any event, I think we might wait until the rest of the data is gathered before making any conclusions. Badbilltucker 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow these are both beautiful articles. I am impressed. I love these. Keep up the good work. --Filll 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please peak at a deletion review
Joshua, can you look in at a current deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24. I think you are in a better position to evaluate the new information offered there than I am. GRBerry 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackpotwatch
Hey JoshuaZ, sometime back in the late summer last year, there was a AfD on the Quackpotwatch article and the decision was to merge with Quackwatch article. I'm not sure if there is a way to find it, but Fyslee will certainly remember. I am concerned about some of the others as well, but I'll look at them one at a time as I am relatively new to this article, trying to save Fyslee and Ilena some pain. --Dematt 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently Tim Bolen was involved in one of the lawsuits, making him notable, though maybe not his webpage. As far as notable goes, that is pretty much the discussion we're having now on the talk page.  You can imagine that this is a contentious point for sure.  I think as long as any rule is applied according to policy and to all sides, maybe we can get something that is stable.  Please join in with your 2 cents. --Dematt 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who wrote the majority of the Quackpot Watch article, so I had very blended feelings when it was deleted. In the beginning I opposed the deletion, but as the policies were explained, I began learning why it just couldn't be kept, and ended up also voting for deletion (of my hard work!)


 * I do not recall that there should be a merge (that would have violated the reason for the AfD), only that he was notable (notorious ...;-) enough to merit mention as a critic of Barrett. At the same time the status of his website was also (as was the whole article about it) evaluated. It is a purely ad hominem, totally solely made personal attack site (collection of emails), with no controls, evidence, references, etc.. It totally fails every qualification for use as a source, internal reference, or external link anywhere at Wikipedia. It has been tolerated against policy, but I have finally deactivated it in the Quackwatch article, while leaving it for those who want to copy and paste. The same needs to be done other places (like Barrett) where it exists against policy. The only place it can be allowed under the rules here is on an article about the site or about Bolen, and the site was so bad that the article about it was deleted. All that in spite of the fact that I had let Bolen do most of the talking. I "know" him well, having been threatened by him, sued, and repeatedly attacked and spammed. I chose his quotes that best described his reasons for the site "in his own words". It is an archive for his "opinion pieces" email newsletter which he spams to thousands. The anti-spam community is very upset with him, and he gets chewed out on Usenet, where he actually dares to attempt to engage them, with no success. -- Fyslee 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are exactly right about it not being a merge, but that the article was deleted with assertions that there was notable information that should be put on the Barrett or QW articles. I apologize if I mislead anyone, but I think the end result is the same.  No doubt the website is an attack site and should not be cited from WP. --Dematt 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question in my editor review
I have answered your question in that location. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops!
I totally misread the article in the Wikipedia Signpost. I self reverted my edits to the spam templates excluding the one about all the sites using the MediaWiki spam blacklist. Jesse Viviano 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Doomkittyx
Gotcha...I have just been concerned about being a tad to overzealous in indef blocking. It seems like I have had to do a LOT of it lately. Thanks, --Kukini 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note moved from userpage to talkpage
Thanks for the note Joshua. Actually I have edited lots of pages on Wikipedia. I don't use a username for a reason... so vandals won't follow me around and screw with all of my edits. With an IP # that changes ones edits don't show up when clicking on the IP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.246.203.114 (talk • contribs).

I added a signature to your comment on WP:ANI on the legal threat...
...but the comment appears to also have been chopped off at the end. Perhaps you were using an external editor? --BenBurch 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob
... at all. LOL. At least I was laughing until I noticed the amount of crapflooding going on right now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics
Is at DRV per your note at closing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I reinstated it. This was due to a miscommunication between Joshua and me at WP:AN. The AfD hasn't run its full course yet, I just inquired if it should be closed early because of an ongoing ArbCom case. I have a premonition this will end up at DRV, but we should wait the full five days. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice
excellent block summary, next we know you'll be joining the rouge admin cabal :o) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the rv (at List of Cabals) but not the block...I figured that was why you rv'd such an innocuous edit ;) Guettarda 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Insulting last sentence
Removing the last sentence of the “Dawkins rant” may make the deceitful creationists look, well, less deceitful, but it is unfair to terminate it there without explaining why it is not deceitful. I’m sorry if you don’t like what is written in the book, and you would rather the passage ended in that way, but it makes no sense if it does.

I’ll leave this out though, if it offends you: “Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.” I’ll just leave in the explanation as to why it wasn’t deceitful (the creationists honestly believing the question couldn’t be answered)Simpsons contributor 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The concern was not finding the sentence "offensive" but that having such a large quote from Dawkins created POV issues. I am in this case in complete agreement with Dawkins- it is pathetic. However, the controversy is primarily over what actually happened, not Dawkins and AIG's analysis of motivations etc. It is therefore somewhat POV and unnecessary to give Dawkins opinion that AIG was pathetic. JoshuaZ 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I though a pov violation concerned the pov of the editor, not of the person that the article is about. Is it ok to have only the explanation, without the "pathetic" bit stook on the end? Simpsons contributor 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems ok to me to just have Dawkins explanation. The current version seems fine to me. (I'm not sure what you mean about pov of the editor v. pov of the person the article is about. The concern is that the other version gives too much room to Dawkins when the article is about AIG) JoshuaZ 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A word to the wise
If you're having trouble with 3RR, you might try using the talk page. Someone advised me recently about the importance of building consensus. ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nogster
Yes, I am Nogster. I forgot my password for that account, and don't have any way of getting it back. If you're an administrator you may be able to help me do that? Noogster 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that's what I'll do. Thanks. Noogster 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Banter
Joshua, I understand much of what you do is AGF. As an admin you have to. But I'm really beginning to wonder if VfDing Messianic articles is helping anything. It certainly wastes time that could actually be spent improving articles - perhaps a good reason why I haven't responding to a criteria request for the page you nominated. I am the only regular Messianic editor on WP at this point. You and others have forced the rest away with a constant barrage of POV and paperwork so as to render any real progress as meaningless. At best nothing is being made worse, at worse, you and other editors by VfDing articles are simply depriving the public of valid, relevant, and useful information. This has become an undeclared information war, one in which I refuse to participate in. I have more important things to do than watch for VfDs because the number of Messianic editors has dwindled to no less than my occasional visits to wikipedia in looking up things not even related to Messianic Judaism. As an editor, I would ask that you help defend these articles. It may be contrary to your religion; but I ask in all fairness that fairness be given - as this current spat has caused me to withdraw entirely from Wikipedia, and now Wikipedia is losing its last Messianic editor. Shalom. Go delete everything. I don't care any more. Thanks for what assistance you did give in maintaining a fair standard. This is just far too much work to do it all. inigmatus 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Joshua, it's become far too much time consuming on my part. To be honest, it feels like I'm spending too much of my time on Wikipedia herding cats that I didn't even let loose nor really care to herd. I don't know at this point. I think I'm going to take a break for a while. Perhaps a long while. I was really hoping I could actually contribute by doing what I do best: draft articles, and provide sources; instead of fighting off VfDs. Just note that if Important figures go, then there is no place to put on the Messianic Judaism template, a list of figures important to Messianic Judaism, and I fear then that that template could then become as bloated as Template:Judaism which does the same thing. Have you wondered why the list of important figures to Judaism in the Judaism template isn't challenged? Has anyone considered that reasoning - if a template can list important figures, why not an article so as to prevent template bloat? inigmatus 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FieldTurf
I noticed you've made a couple minor edits to both the AstroTurf and FieldTurf articles and I would like to ask for your help in neutralizing the marketing speak on both articles. I myself have a COI and have made it known to be as transparent as possible (I work for the AOR for AstroTurf, though I'm not editing on behalf of the agency or Astroturf). The obvious problem is that if I make any edits to neutralize the POV of the FieldTurf article regardless of how neutral my edits are, 1.) The user Coz reverts then immediately and 2.) My COI is called into question. I've repeatedly requested for neutral editors to neutralize the FieldTurf article where they feel appropriate and I am more than willing to offer my knowledge of the industry to clarify any questionable claims. Thanks for helping out if you're able. Ben 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the time
To type the relevant section. See Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution regarding Matsumura|1998 and how others are selectively quoting her article. (It is complicated, so the selective quoting might be forgivable). StudyAndBeWise 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I uploaded it to wikisource. It's not the type of source I prefer, but you all can be the judge. StudyAndBeWise 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

cafepress
They have a less than brilliant reputation for quality and with the amount of stuff the foundation could potentialy sell it could likely get a better deal elsewhere.Geni 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

unblock?
Concerning this: Over two months have passed now and I have not gone anywhere near any circumcision related article. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review a possible unblock of user:Subversive element, or at least consider talking to Jayjg about it. After all, "being disruptive", "waging a war" and "harassing other users" were not the only things I did through that account. 84.44.169.181 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, if you're too busy. But you promised to look into it, so... whenever you can find the time, I'd be happy to get any response. I have your talk page bookmarked and am checking it frequently. Or you can post to user talk:Subversive element. 87.78.150.42 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've talked to Jayjg and he feels very uncomfortable with letting you back and I in general am willing to defer to his judgements on most admin issues. The only advice I can possibly give is that if you start off a new account, don't edit any of the same topics and don't tell anyone about it and try to make a new start for yourself, that might be ok. (And really avoid them, not just somewhat avoid them). JoshuaZ 04:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts, I expected as much from Jayjg. As you may suspect, I already have a new account running. But I hate that I'm a block evader, and I have to keep clear of Jayjg and several other editors (which I'm totally doing!). Well, talk about "blocks are not intended to be punitive"... like indef.blocks without process. Yeah, right. Some distant day, either Wikipedia will go down or people like him, and Jakew, and Haber and and and. It's such a pity some areas of WP attract mostly nice people while other areas attract creative trolls and cabals. Anyway, thanks again. 87.78.150.42 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

admin nomination
Sure, I'd be happy to run again. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the supportive nomination. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism by country
The whole article is garbage, and should be deleted. However, given the unlikelihood of that happening I'm focusing on the POV-pushing, original research, and dishonest editing of one specific editor, in an area that I'm actually familiar with. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Adminship
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! With regards to your offer, I must regretfully add that I have to decline a RfA nomination for the present. The reason is obvious. For the last couple of weeks, I have not been editing significantly to this project due to the lack of time and work commitments (I am working a 12-hour job). If I were to run for a nomination for the fourth time, it will most likely be a failure again. As you are well aware, the process of a RfA nomination is quite unforgiving. Of course, I am interested in becoming an admin, but deep down inside, I know that I would fail another nomination.

I wish to thank you for having faith in my abilities. I would also like you to know that I will most definitely carry on contributing to this project and hope to increase the level of commitment in the near future. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind...
Popping in over at Steven Dufour‎ and tell me if I am crazy. You'll want to see the version prior to my edits here Obviously I am disturbed by this article and give my reasons on the talk page. Anyhow, I would like to get an admin's opinion/guidance on the subject. I feel inclined to blank the entire article but I think engaging an admin for guidance will bring better results. The irony is it's about a guy who is a Wiki editor whom I have had more than one dissagreement :-) To me it is just wrong to write an poorly sourced (if you can even call those sources) mostly all orginal research article about a living person and THEN talk about whether the subject matter is notable or not. And if you do not have time to check it out can you point me in a direction?  Cheers and thanks. Mr Christopher 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, both of you. I would like to see the article removed and I explained my reasons on its non-notablity talk page. Steve Dufour 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks JoshuaZ! Mr Christopher 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: CrazyInSane
You've got mail. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My block was incorrect
YOu blocked me for reverting vandalism. Now it is vandalism when an admin and two editors seeminly come to a comprimise and add content about Israel see Evidence of admin jayjg edits to Racism where he allowed the content and modified the content for inclusion, this was there for 1 month. Now an editor came in and deleted the entire thing (again). I reverted. Then the above admin, who i believe has a conflict of interest and is blocking us with a [WP:POINT] changed his stance, (see his last comments on the talk page). He didnt say this when he (i stress he) modified the content to reach a truce. But now he has come back with the old POV. This person is an admin. I must ask you to review the situation. I strongly suggest getting people who are not close to this topic in anyway shape or form to review what is going on and bring balance. I have seen no where in the rules of wiki where they can be one set of criteria for Israel and another set for Trinidad, Chile et al. This is the real issue i have, the threshold for adding valid sources is set so high nothing will come of it. Also see the Israel section on racism and ask yourself how do you think that looks to the outside world? Does it reflect balance and honesty? Maybe you are Jewish maybe you are Muslim, this issue has nothing to do with that and we must rise above this and be admins and editors and act with one standard across the board.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your apparent empty pontificating about Biographies of living persons
You stated on my talk page, which warrants substantive response:

Cyber, you are a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I suggest you spend a few months writing articles before you attempt to get involved in policy-intensive, controversial issues like general BLP concerns. Those are awfully big yet very empty words from someone who highlights his most prideful primary authorial BLP contributions as stubs. Are we supposed to presume that you are an expert on WP:BLP based upon this record?

But do feel free to go through all the BLPs where I am the primary author. I will certainly return the favor of the scrutiny, of course, if you decide to take me up on this. You might start with Mary Pride, which I started and of which I am primary author. While citation is not the sole concern of WP:BLP, you will note how each and every statement there is cited, and many are multiply cited. You will note how it is, in total, a model example of an article per WP:BLP.

The proof is in the evidence. Where is your evidence?

Based upon your own surficial application of your apparently deficient understanding of WP policy on WP:BLPs, as evidenced at my talk page on the dates near the date of this post, it appears the WP community actually might have cause for concern in the inverse - not with me, but with you.

But in your attempts at discrusive control, I am the bad guy, not you, right? Yet, in point of fact, here we have an admin (you) who has never once written an exemplary BLP, and who exhibits a novice understanding of the policy, who is nonetheless trying to bully his morally empty weight around to an editor who has written exemplary BLPs and, certainly commensurate, actually understands the policy in depth.

No surprise. Many WP admins are very well known in the press and various blogospheres for helping make WP a source 1st graders cannot cite. Might I cordially suggest you have a look in the mirror if this fact troubles you?

CyberAnth 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Nelson
Are you sure you are an admin? You migth want to have a good read of WP:BLP. You might want to have a look at the Bill Nelson talk page and see WHY it violates NPOV to charaterize a person's views as you are inserting into the article. CyberAnth 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to your question, this makes me fairly sure I was an admin at some point, and I don't think I've been desysopped since then. Now, I looked at the talk page before reinserting the material, and I don't see anything relevant there. Now if you can a) address what I said on the talk page and b) point me to where these previous discussions are, I'd appreciate it. Also, note that whether or not the content is there, it is not a BLP issue since it is well sourced content to what notable others have to say about him. At most there is an NPOV concern. And NPOV disputes are not an exception for WP:3RR.  JoshuaZ 05:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, you are an admin and you are still so ignorant of these things? A NPOV problem is a BLP problem. Read WP:BLP. It is there is plain English. In the first paragraph. CyberAnth 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent minor change to creation-evolution controversy
I left your change in tact, but disagreed with it on the talk page. I don't think it is POV, it might be OR, but interpretting OR too strictly is problematic. Please see discussion and comment. StudyAndBeWise 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I'm not an admin, so I couldn't unblock if I wanted to. I'll just have leave it up to whoever is next to see the request to decide. Personally I don't think the choice is too clear, since the whole thing seems pretty complex. --Wildnox(talk) 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the future yes. I had a recent nomination that ended agaisnt me, mostly due to concern over my lack of experience in XFDs and lack of quality on articles that I've worked on. --Wildnox(talk) 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to survey site in Niddah
Hi, I removed this link from the Niddah article. It's actually not nontopical -- the survey is on Niddah -- and I'm not sure if I was correct to have called it SPAM, but clearly it's not an informative link. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have necessarily called it spam, but I agree that it isn't that helpful a link. JoshuaZ 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your kind words
Thank you for those kind words; they help -- Avi 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat's unblock
It's your call to unblock him, and that's fine, but I would like to point out that he's also been disruptive on the MEMRI article. Hopefully, he will calm down. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * block him? I'm not an admin. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon's comment, I believe, is totally incorrect. I have not been "disruptive" there; what I have done is defend a reasonable edit that I have explained clearly in the talk page.  Armon and another user, Isarig, have made the process very frustrating by insisting on including WP:OR and on deleting sourced and relevant material that I defended in talk.  During the conversation on the talk page they continually brought up irrelevant points and even pretended not to understand obvious points in order to keep the debate going and to keep edit-warring.  It appears they are ganging up on me and I'm not sure what Wikipedia policies come into play when that happens -- Isarig's quick report of my alleged 3RR -- which turned out to be incorrect -- followed by Armon's charge that I have been disruptive -- both seem like attempts to settle a content dispute by claiming there is a behavior problem. csloat 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian bureaucrat
Hi, Joshua. I have a big question about Wikipedian Bureaucratship. But I know Wikipedian who is Bureaucrat is also Wikipedian Administrator. But I have been little bit confused on between Administrator and Bureaucrat. Is Bureaucrat wikipedian special wikipedian? In Wikipedia, There are many administrators even more than thousand wikipedians. In my opinion, about 50 wikipedians are Bureaucrat. What is bureaucrat's job in Wikipedia? Does Bureaucratship needs supports by other wikipedian as adminship? Could you please explain Bureaucratship just briefly? I hope you can understand my questions. Anyways, Please respond in my talk page. Thanks. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GordonWatts
-- a prime POV pusher if there ever was one -- is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent -- just the latest in a series of convoluted and tireless rationalizations can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of, who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.

P.S.: I'm going to leave this message on a few other admins' pages (JzG, Musical Linguist, maybe a few others, I dunno), and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've had enough of his foolishness, so your input is requested at Community_noticeboard. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jubus
Wow, never heard of it; that's going on my watchlist. My reply to IZAK was an edit conflict with yours; I didn't read your comment before I pasted mine in again. I'm getting pretty sick of that DRV at this point though. I don't want to sit through any more sniping. I pointed inigmatus toward Mediation and the suggestion was dismissed. If it's going to be all yelling and no dispute resolution, then I'm going to deliberately lose interest in what becomes of their feud. — coe l acan t a lk  — 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hal Turner Pwnage Thing
No problem ya hoser! I was just having a bit of a laugh... hm, I guess I should sign out when I do that? (I'm on a school IP) haha lol just jokes I don't normally do that sort of thing here... but I just had a sudden compulsion. Sorry man!

??
HOLY SHIT are you just patrolling all of the pages that I make here? RC versailles and pwnage and all? this is frustrating

I always just click random page and then look for red links so I can make new pages Maybe if it doesn't really exist, you should remove all references to it from all other wikipedia articles.

good day

Interlaker 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ICR
Thank you for allowing my changes to stand and reverting yourself after reading the full article. I spent a good deal of time including and tabulating information from multiple sources that would have varying viewpoints on Creationism in general. For instance I think you would agree that People for the American way would not exactly be a bed fellow with ICR, but they added history and perspective that had been lacking. I tried to make sure that all sourced information was reinstated and I have also tried to use the talk page extensively -- one of the few in this topic who does so. Bbagot 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)