User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 9

Six Day War
Can you help me avoid an edit war on this? I am simply trying to keep a section that existed during your lock on the article (Accusations of IDF killings of Egyptian prisoners of war). OpTioNiGhT 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

please wait to edit
Hello, please, could you wait before editing the passage I'm making - to meet the needs of various persons who wanted citations? Im working to do just that, and you are rewording my text, which is fine when I'm done but you are making these verbal changes when I'm adding substance and people are reverting me to you. Please hold off for about 20 minuntes, or less, and I'm done. Thx much

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds
Hi JoshuaZ. I just want to leave a minor note of appreciation for deciding to delete that rather unnecessary article. I know it's your job to do this kind of thing here, but it's a relief to see Wikipedia's policies prevail in the face of some very over-eager efforts to keep it. Spellcast 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice for removals at Fred Thompson
Two accounts want to remove/have been removing material that criticizes a presidential canidate. and main activity is removing negative material and adding positive material to the article. Most recently they have even removed comments made by the subject.

My block on ConfuciusOrnis
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I agree that reverting the active discussions from an archive is not vandalism. In the case in question, ConfuciusOrnis reverted the whole of the archive, 140k, to the talk page, twice, and despite my clear explanations and warnings.

The active discussion had itself been moved to a user's talk page by ConfuciusOrnis. I also placed several comments on the page inviting users to move any active comments I had missed back from the archive, and provided them with difs linking to the page history in order to make this easier for them.

The "repetitive comment" is the simple fact that the talk page and Archive 12 now contain essentially the same material. That would have been avoided if the editors had taken my advise to selectively re-insert any live comments, rather than re-inserting the whole archive. The editors have re-inserted all the material from archive 12 into the talk page. It appears from talk:Creation science that they have decided that they will now selectively delete material they are not using. Perhaps this will have much the same result as my suggestion of re-inserting the material selectively from the archive, but of course leaves much of repetition in place, but perhaps it is a better solution for them.

I have set out in detail the actions I took on my talk page. I maintain that the block was appropriate. In any case, since it appears that those involved do not wish to take the issue further, I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your comments. Banno 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, those "involved" are still deciding -- drop it or go for it. Not because anyone doubts that Banno was wrong, but because action is likely futile. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jim. Further action might prove futile.  I just think Banno was wrong in this action, moving quickly without evidence. Orangemarlin 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request
Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design FAR
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5
Hi,

You asked for sourcing and I've added sourcing throughout. I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive
You should probably archive, Your talk page is getting fairly large to navigate through.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. JoshuaZ 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you were getting so close to 200 items :( Guettarda 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Strawman Sock?

 * Possibility another Straw-man sock puppet has arisen in the mold of User:Chemist3456.....User:Science Solider. Has all the same signs, e.g. the user makes many spelling errors (i.e. "Solider"). If not a sock, bears watching.  - LuckyLouie 16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Removing large parts of the article, no matter how ludicrous they might seem, is not helpful. As long as they are verifiable, I would argue that these sections should be left in the article to communicate clearly what this discipline advocates. Even if these practices are not particularly mainstream, they do exist and should be portrayed. --Filll 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please put back the mass of good stuff you deleted that you call star trek gobbledegook you don't know what you are doing! you are wholly unsuited to edit this article. Peter morrell 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" DRV
I was coming to that conclusion as well. I responded to the last two because they both involved direct attacks on myself, but decided it would be a good idea for me to shut up for a while thereafter. Hrafn42 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stopped responding to them, but it seems they haven't stopped the character-assassination - see User_talk:Hrafn42. Hrafn42 11:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Conservapedia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Conservapedia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Conservapedia. Thank you. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination) closed 16 minutes after my post above. Also, I messed up in the link to AfD#4 above. I've been working on a new technique to provide wikignome AfD notifications using Aka's Page History Stats Tool and it still has some kinks in it. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Joshua's Day!

 * Agreed; Happy Day JoshuaZ. :) Acalamari 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How nice! Puppy approves - so sorry I'm late to the Happy Day. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm so happy you liked your little gift, dear Joshua! :) I'm truly sorry I was away and couldn't notify you myself, but with Cliff's help, I didn't have to postpone it ;) Hope you had a marvelous, beautiful Day! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah Humbug! Mind you, undeniably a jolly good Joshua cause to celebrate (or have celebrated). Hope you had a nice day, .. dave souza, talk 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Draioicht na hOiche removal
'''You removed the entry about Draioicht na hOiche, as well as all artists' entries connected to it. I would be grateful if you could explain the reason'''. Draioicht

Russell Simpson
Why was the page for wrestler Russell "Psycho" Simpson removed?

I'd like to see his page added back. I believe he's an up and coming wrestler and has appeared on Heat, RAW and Smackdown brand WWE shows several times in the past. - http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/webshows/heat/2697470/27396401/drm-heat051906seg2_ Jdblundell 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That block
Well, see, the thing is, despite Hrafn's claims to the contrary we're not in fact involved in any kind of content dispute. Rather, in clearing xFD backlogs, I made a judgment call about the deletion of something I'm otherwise uninvolved in and don't have any particular strong opinions about, and he's been, for the lack of a better term, screaming bloody murder since then. Aside from that he made a series of nasty remarks against Kbdank, and other people disagreeing with him on this issue, and appears to have a history of doing so against other people. Note that an outside admin (Yamla) reviewed and endorsed the block. HTH,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup
Hello, Joshua. Please join us at the First Annual Wikipedian New York Picnic in Central Park. R.S.V.P. here: Meetup/NYC. -- Y not? 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 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 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on fair use and whatnot
I want to add some content to an article that would include quotes from copyrighted work. It does not appear that I can find the references with the actual content online for me to add as a footnote as is seen to be the norm. If I use block quotes and source the books properly, is it okay for me to do that on wikipedia? Thanks! Mathchem271828 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my "I'm an idiot" days I guess
I cannot believe I didn't even register that.. didn't even really look at the name, just reformatted the page. Sheesh. And I usually notice that one, too, darnit! Anyway, thanks much for blocking the sock. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles
Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Dryve article
Hello, it appears you were involved in the deletion of the article on the band 'Dryve'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve_%28second_nomination%29

I was a founding member of this band and would occasionally add current information to the page. It seems the two main points of contention were first, the involvement of a banned wikiuser named Jason Gastrich, and second, is the article's information is unverifiable. I would like to request the article be reinstated on the following grounds-

I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article.

There is sufficient verifiable information to meet the WP/music requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

As far as this Jason Gastrich character goes, I do vaguely remember him frequenting the Dryve performances in San Diego and I do believe he briefly played with former Dryve bass player Michael Pratschner after Dryve had disbanded. If he in fact did start the page as one admin claimed, his personal character deficits do not negate the validity of the subject matter of which I looked over quite a bit to insure it's accuracy.

Please contact me if you would like more information.

--Kickstar1 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Keith Andrew Kickstar1@hotmail.com

ED on DRV
First of all, don't mistake the "DRV" as a legitimate attempt by a real user to create a genuine ED article: it's simply more ED trolling. The user who posted it boasts of being a troll on their own user page, has a very small contribution history of primarily vandalism, example 1 example 2 example 3 and threatened to write a "slanderous article" on me if I didn't take their case up with ArbCom.

Now, there is a larger issue of whether the MONGO ArbCom decision represents a ban on an ED article in Wikipedia. Although that isn't made absolutely specific and explicit within the letter of the ruling, I'd say it's reasonably implied. Since ED can't be linked to, that would make having an article a bit difficult to say the least. At the very least I'd like to see ArbCom weigh in on the matter before a full DRV (which would most likely be a trolling free-for-all anyway) is attempted, and since there aren't enough reliable sources for an article anyway that would just be beaurocracy-wanking at this point. Given the topic's EXTREMELY sensitive nature (it's the only link banned by arbcom as far as I'm aware) I think it's reasonable to expect both ArbCom's go-ahead and a reasonable working draft of a proposed article before letting a DRV proceed. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is room for that interpretation, and perhaps I should simply have removed the DRV entirely as trolling, but I figured there was some slight educational value in making the nominator (as well as anyone wandering by) some of the history behind the topic by linking to the ArbCom decision. If there had been any hint that that particular nomination was anything other than everyday garden-variety trolling (for example, had it come from a non-troll user, had it presented an article draft or significant additional sources, etc) I probably would not have closed it in that manner.  But anyway you slice it, I don't see the point in giving an admitted and obvious troll a five-day playground pass just for the purpose of beaurocracy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * but the problem, Starblind, is that you seem to have made a false statement about the arbcom decision. Perhaps you should simply correct it. DGG (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This could have been closed as a disruptive action, instead of falsely quoting a non-existent decision, after looking through the history of this, the only time a total article prohibition came up was in the workshop:
 * Encyclopedia damatica article
 * 1) Encyclopedia damatica is an attack site which oftentimes deliberately tries to harass Wikipedians and post personal infomation. Not only should all links to said website be removed on sight, but an article about the website should not be recreated on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't support this. Wikipedia is not censored. Fred Bauder 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee doesn't rule on content. --MichaelLinnear 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I, as a non-troll, would very much like a full examination of the evidence, if any, that hte ED iste is in fact notable. If ther3e is clear evidence of notability, it would put the arbcom dcision into an akward conflict with the mandate to permit articles on all notable subjects. I rather suspect that there is not good evidence for notability, but I would rather not be unsure. if soemone actually has such evidence, let it be presented, and i can't think of a better forum than DRV. DES (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 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 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Molyneux
Hi Joshua, I just spotted the article you wrote on Samuel Molyneux, and noticed that you had placed the article in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. Just for future reference, I thought I'd point out that this is technically incorrect: he was actually a member of the Parliament of Great Britain (the Parliament of the United Kingdom was created 70 years after his death, when the United Kingdom was created by the Act of Union 1800). I have recategorised the article under Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies, as well as adding a stubby section on which constituencies he represented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Psalm 83
I noticed you closed the AFD debate on Psalm 83:18. I believe your reason for doing so may have been inaccurate. Actually, it wasn't merged. I moved it and added the content regarding the rest of the Psalm to it. I'm not sure whether this renders your closing of the discussion questionable or not, as I'm not an admin, but thought you might like to know. John Carter 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also note now that I may have actually acted improperly in moving the page. My apologies if my conduct was inappropriate in this instance. If this would indicate that reopening the discussion would be called for, please do so and I promise I'll leave the article alone this time. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith
DGG directed me to your draft and I took the liberty of copying it, editing it a bit and expanding it as you can see at User_talk:Filll/Tara_C._Smith. I am trying to justify an article on Aetiology, and to this end I have a draft on it at User_talk:Filll/aetiology. Any comments, suggestions and improvements you can make on either or both of these is welcome.--Filll 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

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 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in Harry Potter DRV
You voted overturn because I didn't tell my reason of delete in the AFD, I did say it in the DRV though, just forgot to list it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PD-EU-no author disclosure
Could you either add a disputed tag to the template or unprotect the template ? It's not exactly a transclusion nightmare at the moment and I don't think the template is a terribly good idea. It's very difficult to verify that the author NEVER published a version of the image acknowledging authorship. Additionally it's not clear how it interacts with US copyright law. Megapixie 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. ... Kenosis 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith
Now has an article. I think she is noteworthy enough in her own right.--Filll 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is being copyedited in some ways that I am not sure I agree with. If you get a chance, take a look. Thanks.--Filll 14:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits minor
I will change my default setting. Thanks. Mark Vaoverland 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ormand Cup
Well-written opinion on this AfD. I don't think the supporters ever fully understood the concept. Good job. Realkyhick 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD
I saw you took away the Speedy Deletion tag and said that it should be instead made to AfD. What process should I do to suggest an article (any article) for deletion? Tinkleheimer 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered
I'm not sure, but it strikes me that your block of PR is punitive, not preventative; can you convince me otherwise? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Ahem - I don't wish to start an argument, but I've questioned Jaakobou just twice, once on 6th August, once on 12th August (leastways, I don't recall anything in between). Only the second of these was felt by anyone/everyone to be offensive. In the meantime, he's posted 6 times to my TalkPage, in a thoroughly muddled fashion, accusing me of libel (isn't this a more direct and credible legal threat than anything I've done?). What comments is it I'm supposed to have made "after multiple warnings"? The only warning I can see from you is for him to stop making legal threats to me! THF warned him several times for the same thing on another page. PalestineRemembered 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * new AN/I here - . please participate.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42
Thank you for warning User:Hrafn42 because of his ad hominem attacks on Talk:Intelligent design

''A reminder that this page is for improving the article, not bashing people with whom one disagrees. Also please note that responding to Luskin's criticisms by insulting the man on this page will simply make his criticisms look more justified. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)''

Northfox 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Heymanyosup
He seems hell-bent on having his edits go through, without any regard to discuss anything on talk pages. He has violated 3RR on Aisha again - the same thing I blocked him for yesterday. I would post on ANI, but seeing as how you having been watching this editor since yesterday (he only "arrived" 2 days ago), I'm asking for your opinion on should he be blocked again, and the duration. Pepsidrinka 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Troy Williams

 * Thanks for actioning the request for speedy deletion. I have invested too much time on the talk page trying to deal with poor referencing etc and then it struck me much of the problem was copyright violation anyway.  There are meat puppets also I believe editing ...  Why don't they go and play on YouTube or MySpace or ...  Regards --Golden Wattle  talk 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in recreating. If other editors want to recreate - then the Canberra Libs page is of course referenced on the talk page!  I can userfy (ie I am an admin) if other users wish to not start from scratch or if any of the refs were useful but I think they weren't.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been harping on at the "students" who have been active on the article's talk page about WP:COI so I wanted to be quite sure another admin reviewed the request. I have no particular interest in the article and certainly not its subject; I stumbled across it when reviewing recent changes associated with Special:Recentchangeslinked/Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007 as per my post to the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard about the use of wikipedia by politicians and their offices in the context of our upcoming Federal Election.  This article seemed to have developed in a way that I did not think was commensurate with our policies but I have been accused of being prejudiced and unhelpful.  Hence I did want somebody other than me to delete as a copyvio.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied
I'm replying on my own talk page - you can delete this once you've read it. John Smith&#39;s 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hi Joshua, just letting you know that your name has come up here: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision. I'm not sure if you even knew the case existed. Good luck and take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. JoshuaZ 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Denialism
Josh, do you have a sensible definition for what it means? I'm deeply concerned about using denialism for a category when our own article describes the term as perjorative, and no dictionary definition can be located. My own sense is that it is a fuzzy term used too often to negatively label one's opponents. There is something about painting holocaust denial, moon landing hoax theories, and creationism advocacy all with the same brush that I find deeply unsettling. Dragons flight 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making message more diplomatic
I need work in this area. Daisey cutter 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ReinaB
is requesting to be unblocked. You blocked this user for repeated copyright infringements. As such, I am not inclined to unblock but I leave it in your hands. --Yamla 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a complete and most likely useless third party member. But I looked through contribs and stuff and if I could i would NOT unblock. SLSB talk  • contrib   17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop now
"You appear to have an obsession with the NCSE edits. As has already been explained to you, all such edits were likely well within WP:COI guidelines and do not appear to have been consistent with WP:NPOV. You are not being productive at this point, but merely disruptive. Please stop. JoshuaZ 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)"

Are you referring to this edit in which the COI finding of Likely was announced on the relevant talk page? Daisey cutter 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on illegal_prime
JoshuaZ I invite you to express yourself on my talk page concerning your recent revert action. I shall listen carefully to what you have to say. Cuddlyable3 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-BLP ugh
Serious copyvios. Thanks for pointing it out. --Iamunknown 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Cuddlyable3
Please review your comments at User talk:Cuddlyable3. I don't see any support for the idea that he has been attacked, and the geek and fanboy comments were made 10 months ago to another user. Cuddlyable3 has continued to revert war over talk page messages that are far too mild for this kind of disruption. Thatcher131 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's using your support to justify continued edit warring. He blanked his own talk page but there are comments from myself and Isotope23 in the history, plus there is an AN/I thread about this.  I have just blocked him for 8 hours after repeating his edits after multiple warnings. Thatcher131 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was AN. Administrators%27_noticeboard. He used your support to justify himself to Hu12, for example, but I reviewed the edits and don't see anything wrong with the original comments. Thatcher131 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request
Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.CholgatalK! 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

blog discussion
Taking place at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. THF 19:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request undeletion of single payer health insurance
Hi, I would like to request that single payer health insurance be undeleted. While a few editors chorused these complaints against it:


 * 1) POV fork from Single payer health care
 * 2) author chose to create this article rather than resolve naming /content disputes
 * 3) Other than content previously disputed and deleted from Single payer health care, this article essentially duplicates the other.

Examining both of these pages, and their associated talk pages, will show that these claims are baseless.

First, the fork was initiated after a discussion on Talk:Single-payer health care. Only three editors decided to voice their opinion: two (including myself) wanted to fork the article, while the third disagreed. After two weeks and no new opinions, I created single payer health insurance using new text and many new references. A few days later, as I was working to focus the two articles on their separate subjects, the new article was suddenly proposed for deletion with complaints similar to the ones above.

I explained and gave references for why the objections were without merit, but no one cared to debate the proposed deletion with me. I hope that you will examine these explanations and see that even though four editors think that the creation of this article was unjustified, it should be reinstated.


 * 1) The article's subject is well defined, and the claims in the article are well referenced.  The first objection is that it is only my point of view that single payer health care and single payer health insurance are different concepts.  However, the references in the new article, the references in the old article, the references which I listed for discussion on the talk page, and even the text of the old article support the claim that they are separate ideas.
 * 2) As I mentioned above, the one editor who opposed the fork gave up discussing it two weeks before the actual fork was made.  I think it was reasonable, at that point, to believe that there were no major objections to forking the article.  The implication that this fork was used to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines is without warrant.
 * 3) The majority of the article was new content.  The new article was not even a rough match to the old article, let alone an exact duplicate.  Furthermore, the claim that the new article was being used to house content that was deleted from the old article is simply false.

Thanks. Kborer 06:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you copy the text from the deleted article to my talk page or point me who someone who can? Thanks. Kborer 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed this. I'm running out now, but will do so when I get back. JoshuaZ 17:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event
Hi Joshua - I see that you were involved in an unfortunate episode recently regarding a block of User:Filll by Dragon's Flight. Was it related to Featured_article_candidates/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event this discussion?. If so, he was obviously naughty in what he did, but I can certainly see why he spat the dummy - the debate has taken on a vitriolic/downright abusive tone that is quite uncharacteristic of FAC discussions. I don't know if you may be willing to keep an eye on things over there and at Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event to try and ensure that tempers don't flare...? Badgerpatrol 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to worry Badgerpatrol. I will not bother with that article again. I have had it with that article. It is not an article I have done much with. It is not an article I am very interested in. I am just helping a friend. And I do not see the article going in a positive direction. For a variety of reasons. I am sorry you are unable or unwilling to help fix the purported numerous errors and factual inaccuracies in that article. It is a shame, but that is what I guess the bottom line is.--Filll 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

e-mail ...
... should be possible now. All the best, &lt;K  F&gt;  22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

drawing
You seem to have ruled that a drawing of a motorcycle was not replaceable. You also seemed to have closed the discussion before 5 days was up, while discussion was ongoing, and without comment. Was this intentional? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The remaining discussion had turned to changes to in IfD policy rather than discussion of the image, so closing seemed reasonable. As to the logic of the close, yes this was intentional. NFCC#1, replaceable fair use, is not a well defined parameter except for images of living persons. NFCC#3, minimal use, appears to have been met (only one image); NFCC#8 was not argued by those seeking deletion; and NFCC#10 is boilerplate that should be resolved with a notice on the talk page of the article in which the image is used, e.g.,  or whatever the complaint is. JoshuaZ 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was nominated for deletion because of concerns that it failed NFCC#1. VO mentioned that it also currently failed #10 as well, but that's fixable; no one said it should be deleted for any reason except NFCC #1 concerns. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that that criterion isn't well defined. It's been hashed over many times, on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:Fair use review, etc. etc. I don't know of any other case where an illustration was deemed non-replaceable. It seems to me that it's a clear violation of NFCC #1 as written to use a non-free drawing, unless you think it would be impossible to create a new, free drawing to replace it. Certainly there were many people voicing their support of the image by saying it passed NFCC #3 and #8, and it does, but that's not the issue. Everyone who has been dealing with non-free images for more than a couple of weeks agreed that the image is replaceable, and none of the "keep" !voters gave an explanation as to why a new drawing couldn't be created to replace it.


 * Look, one image doesn't really matter much one way or the other. I'm just concerned that if you are going to be clearing the IFD backlog, acting as the closing admin, that you understand our policy. Please, help me understand your reasoning. Do you think that a new drawing couldn't replace this one? Do you think that NFCC#1 is unclear and shouldn't be enforced? Or what? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I should explain my logic a bit more. I was in a bit of a rush when I gave the above reply. In some cases NFCC#1 is hard to define. In this case, since the original object no longer exists, it would be impossible to make a new drawing that wasn't a derivative work of the earlier drawings. Thus,a free equivalent is essentially impossible. I hope that explains things sufficiently. JoshuaZ 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop a note here and sort-of apologize. As you know, dealing with deletion debates can be a stressful and thankless business, and I've had my share of people questioning my choices in quite unfriendly terms. I do disagree the outcome of your closing of the debate, but I'm quite sure you were acting entirely in good faith, and that you understand our policies. Respectful disagreement is a sign of a healthy society. Thanks for working at clearing up the backlog, and I'll try to be less touchy in the future. Thanks also for being unshakably civil, even when I'm only shakably so. ☺ All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider
No fewer than 5 admins have endorsed my block. My involvement in the dispute is peripheral at best and the block is for a pattern of efdit warring across multiple articles. Please reconsider. Also, fully protecting an article undergoing a FAC is ridiculous... WjBscribe 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only other edit warring was on the Larry Sanger article yesterday. On neither article was QuackGuru the only one edit warring. The FAC looks like it will almost certainly fail and in any event, an article can't be an FA if it lacking stability, which an article certainly does not have when there is sufficient edit warring to consider full-protecting it. Furthermore, the block appeared to have a strong punitive rather than preventative element. JoshuaZ 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have gone against the clear consensus in favour of the block and substituted your judgment in favour of that consensus. That is unacceptable. He also edit warred on Jimbo Wales the other day - you have handed him a license to game the system. WjBscribe 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Have one of the admins other than you reblock if you feel that strongly. I think its the wrong decision but I'm not going to against a large consensus and would rather QG not edit war as much anyways. JoshuaZ 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. WjBscribe 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy
Was the protection really necessary? There were only two users edit warring, Dev920 and QuackGuru, and they stopped 2 hours ago because they approached 3RR. Nobody has performed a single revert since.  Melsaran  (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking into that now. See section above. JoshuaZ 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate change denial
I don't understand. Why was the protection added, lifted, and then readded in such as short period of time? Revolutionaryluddite 05:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (Please AGF. I am genuinely confused. If I sound sarcastic, that's not my intent.)

I also saw that you readded the protection. I actually appreciate that someone knowledgeable about WP policies would attempt to monitor this. I opened a new thread at which I invite you to take a look. I'd appreciate your thoughts and/or suggestions... --Childhood&#39;s End 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: protecting right afterwards- the reprotection was because the edit warring had apparently not cooled off. Childhoods- I'll take a look later today. I'm a bit busy right now. JoshuaZ 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines
Hi. I ran across your disagreement with Radiant at Policies and guidelines. I reverted your reversion, although I do not specifically support the older version. I think that there is a compromise which can achieve both goals. My sense is that Radiant's concerns lie more in continuity among the guidelines and preserving the customs at WP, than actual opposition to the improved text. Perhaps we need to make some concessions to the older approach while improving the language, and move slowly toward a more perfect solution. --Kevin Murray 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at a compromise version. See: Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/essay.  Please let me know what you think.  --Kevin Murray 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it you have seen the history of this? The older version kept getting tested because it isn't clearly written. The newer version remained in place for six weeks, stable and uncontested. Radiant moved it back to the much older language, including, e.g., "Essays tend to be opinionated." Well, yes, but this is not a definition. Anyway, obviously it is in need of discussion. Discussion is also at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines ... Kenosis 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 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. R Delivery Bot 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'clast/nauticlus/ & IP's
With all his socks, which he said he has explained to catch other socks, is chasing away editors who do not agree with him. How is he investigating my claim about Rosenthal unless he is still emailing her? I don't want to leave and to be honest I am not a good editor. I am disabled and find this site helps me a lot. But that being said, I will not put myself or my family in jeopardy by have my name, address, friends and so forth announced. I did nothing to deserve this behavior and I find that Wikipedia has no way of helping me. If you search I'clast's contributions, and his other accounts, you will see that he started the outing by naming a friend of mine who's brother has Crohn's disease. I am sorry to go but at this point I have no other options. Thanks for your concerns. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 03:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why
Why did you block me? I know I didn't violate the 3-revert rule...--Trulexicon 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * but I'm trying to compromise the version I put in wasn't even my own words! I was trying to put in a compromise text which I agreed with another user.--Trulexicon 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blumpkin redirect
What is the point of redirecting to an article that does not mention the word at all? --Klausok 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it did mention it at one point even if it doesn't now. Maybe take it to redirects for deletion? JoshuaZ 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Material on Betty Dodson Page
I see you reverted the excision I made in the Betty Dodson article about IASHS. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and so can you, right? Well, yes.

I am trying to warn Wikipedia that this issue is potentially very bad. This page has been noticed by people associated with IASHS. They aren't pleased. When I say warn "Wikipedia," this is law suit country, not between me and some random editor, but between IASHS and the Wikipedia Foundation. I am trying to forestall that, and I know it's brewing. If you want to ignore this, go ahead. I really recommend you take this issue a lot more seriously than you are. It is not a kid's game being played in a noisy schoolyard.

But have it your way. It won't take long before IASHS discovers that you have deliberately replaced material that they can claim libels them and one of their graduates. And they did NOT find out from me. Several IASHS graduates have posted material about this to a listserve I belong to -- and they found out about it themselves.

I've added this page to my Watchlist, but it really isn't worthwhile for you to respond to me. It makes no difference if you explain your reasoning about sources to me, because I have nothing to do with this. Instead, I am trying to warn Wikipedia (and now you) about something that needs warning. And, IMO, it really does need warning.

Timothy Perper 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman ban appeal
Hi. With permission from an arbitrator, Iantresman has filed an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, seeking review of the ban against him imposed after discussion at the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, and listed you as a potentially interested party. Your comments would be welcome at Requests for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer is on my talk page
This is merely a heads-up that I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Timothy Perper 08:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer is also on my talk page
This is also merely a heads-up that I've also replied to your comments on my talk page. --profg 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Feht
I noticed that Alexander Feht has been blocked indef for "legal threats." I looked at every diff in the account and it seems to me that nothing was a legal threat. Since I wish to understand wiki better, I would like to know if you could direct me towards an appropriate diff where he makes such a threat. Note that my desire is not to argue with you over the blocking but to better understand procedure. Brusegadi 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was just curious to know what type of comment one has to make to merit such sanctions.  He was rightfully banned on those grounds.  He was also very disruptive... Brusegadi 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad in using the wrong word. Now I understand what happened thought.  The talk page says it all. Brusegadi 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TrueOrigin AfD
Have noticed this canvassing by profg? I was tempted to bring this up on the AfD page, but I'm not totally clear on how inappropriate it is, so I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for me to bring it up there... Yilloslime (t) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered at User_Talk:Yilloslime. --profg Talk 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Your input would be appreciated: Requests for arbitration ScienceApologist 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that there is currently and AN/I discussion regarding an issue you may be involved with here. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.  – ornis ⚙ 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Fleet Universe
I would like to thank you for the thoughtful close on the Star Fleet Universe timeline AfD. As the original author of most of it, I'm sure you can imagine I was hoping for a "keep" (and following the debate, thought it had an even chance of such), but I do not envy your position, and I know you seriously considered the question.

I have just finished the merge, trying to summarize the high points in the History section of SFU and keep some out-of-universe perspective, and would appreciate any advice you care to give on it on the article's talk page. --Rindis 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Joaquin Martinez
The Joaquin Martinez on here appears to be a parody of the Joaquin Martinez on Conservapedia - the other one denies it being him. StaticElectric 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any firsthand proof, so I was hoping that somebody could "officially" clear the matter up like you are doing, so thanks for doing this. StaticElectric 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Christian Edition
I have commented at the DRV, perhaps at this point it would be better if we simply codify some sort of guidelines of inclusion for minor software distributions? You'll note UbuntuME (the Muslim Edition) got created at one point as well. <font color="#FA8605">ALKIVAR &trade; ☢ 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rucashost
I'm a bit puzzled by your comment on the 3RR noticeboard. There were 5 other editors reverting him and one editor trying repeatedly to add the same material back in. That doesn't generally make the other editors "just as bad" that means the one editor has engaged in 4RR 3 times over. JoshuaZ 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Snalwibma reverted Rucashost seven times in just over half an hour (and twice in one minute!). There may have been a couple others who were part of the fray several hours or days ago, but the point still remains that Snalwibma's rapid-fire reverting did nothing to help the situation. There is no reason for revert-warring to get this bad on an article. None. --  tariq abjotu  20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for the record, I replied to the nonsense responses you, ConfuciusOrnis, and Jim put forth on WP:AN3. --  tariq abjotu  21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, congratulations to you! <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since tariq felt fit to delete my response from his talk page that I'll say it again... snalwibma was acting within the guidelines of BLP, in aggressively removing poorly sourced, selective quotes to add potentially slanderous material to a BLP. 3RR simply does not apply to that removal. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems sufficiently borderline that the Tariq's response seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would be fair enough, except that we'd already established ( hey you were there you know this! ) that the material being added served little purpose other than as a coat-rack for partisan misrepresentation of his views. I mean most policy is subjective, and open to interpretation, and it would be fair enough to call this borderline, if it were just snal and rucas fighting over it, but that isn't the case here. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which would be fair enough, except that we'd already established ( hey you were there you know this! ) that the material being added served little purpose other than as a coat-rack for partisan misrepresentation of his views. And I don't doubt that. Unfortunately, that does not provide a license to edit war back to the consensus version to this extent. You all had the luxury of being able to report him to AN3 (or any appropriate noticeboard) without fear of reprisal as he was just about the only person with four reverts. Instead of continuing the revert war, you all should of waited for the report to be addressed (which wasn't very long). Most decided to do that, but others did not. --  tariq abjotu  01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the clarification (in which case I think it would have made more sense to block both of them than protect but that seems like a valid judgement call). JoshuaZ 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably would have done the same thing myself had I gotten to the article before it was protected. Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh in my response on AN3; I was a bit frustrated and surprised three people had extrapolated what I said about Snalwibma to apply to everyone who was reverting Rucashost (and that there was a request for an apology and retraction based on that extrapolation). --  tariq abjotu  01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at AfD
Yes, thanks for the heads up. I will be working on it. Bearian 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,  Daniel  13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Fjse44
Hi Joshua,

I wonder if you'd mind if I restored my post on Fjse44's talk page? - I found it to be an interesting issue in the context of the current external links / 'badsites' debate, and hope that my comments there are still germane. Privatemusings 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 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 09:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for restoring the list over on Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI & BLP
Thanks for your help and looking into this matter (it had laid dormant with Geo and I basically discussing our apparently differing takes on BLP). I replied to you here. • Lawrence Cohen  21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen ector
Might be an idea to salt the above article - it's been deleted 4 or 5 times before. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've salted it. JoshuaZ 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And perhaps Stephen Ector too. I'll keep an eye on the IP and any accounts that'll edit it, but and, and  are all editing it too. They're all the same person, quite probably! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Salted now also. Will keep track of them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You owe me an apology.
As to your ridiculous personal attack, that I'm a sock of Daniel Brandt, I expect an apology immediately. That you don't care about other wikieditors privacy or safety is your own business, I do. Arguing for every step that protects us is my choice. That you don't like it doesn't make me a sockpuppet. ThuranX 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ThuranX, it's extremely obvious that JoshuaZ did not mean that he believed you were a sockpuppet of Daniel Brandt. He was making a sarcastic reference whose meaning he has already explained several times. I suggest that the two of you try to avoid each other for awhile. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. `JoshuaZ 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Archimedes Plutonium
Please do not delete all the stuff before reading about this fellow, who was a very notable presence on usenet for many years. This page was a product of many days of very deliberate negotiations.Likebox 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the individual in question. I'm also familiar with Wikipedia's policies on original research. In any event, the article itself appears to have the AfD closed as delete making this matter somewhat irrelevant. JoshuaZ 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, if only it were original to me! But it is original with him. The AfD was a keep last I checked. AP was happy with his page. It is all right if the page is deleted, because I didn't really expect it to stay. Neither did he. But I hope at least such a man is no longer a laughingstock.Likebox 01:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no that's part of the problem- attempting to interpret his material amounts to original research. As to the second point, people who are portrayed as laughingstocks by reliable sources will be portrayed in a similar fashion in their Wikipedia articles. There's not much we can do about that given our WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Look at Kent Hovind for example. JoshuaZ 02:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that anyone who followed the discussion on his page will no longer refer to him as a laughingstock in the future in any medium, including reliable sources.Likebox 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to mediate a turbulent article?
JoshuaZ, I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends (FOF) article. I saw that you visited the article and made a good edit today. You probably noticed that the situation is pretty tense over there - edit wars are frequent and the article is protected on a regular basis. I read the Talk page archives (there are 10 of them - it took me 2 hours!) and noticed that the article went through 2 mediations already. In my opinion the problem in the past (I am guessing because I wasn't there) is that mediators helped reach consensus but left very quickly, while the concrete was still soft, so to speak. Would you consider being the third mediator? Also, there is an issue with COI. Yamla, an admin, has some reservations because FOF-related editors are massively editing the article from an FOF-owned internet connection, so he blocked the whole IP range. The case has been taken to ANI - it is here. I know this looks like a wasp's nest, but aren't articles like this one what makes an admin's life fun? Thank you for reading this. Robertozz 06:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll try to take a more detailed look later tonight or tomorrow. JoshuaZ 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ - Hope you find the time to get aquainted with the FOF page, here is a relevant quotation addessed to Yamla on WP:COIN, "During a mediation, the mediator Vassayana, suggests that criticism be combined with the rest of the article rather than being its own section. Which was done. A few days later - when Vass left, all the criticism was deleted piece by piece. So I kept opening a new criticism section because obviously this incorporating into the aricle in the end only got rid of criticism. Then the fof members say let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator (ex [2] [3].) Then they would say “not relevant to the section” and get rid of it [4]. This was quite annoying at the time. (I could come up with a couple of more examples if needed). Aeuio 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)"  FYI, Vassayana was asked to mediate and may already be about to step in. ThanksWantthetruth? 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josh, On Oct 7 a previous mediator we contacted asked for a summary. Look at the FOF talk page, [] #9, Looking for a summary. There has been little progress since then. Major changes are: WP:COIN and page blocking; recent start of draft page, and happily, I think editors are learning to adhere to wikiquette. After providing the summary, Vas, the mediator, never came back. When he did the mediation, he was part of the cabal; he has since become an admin. Does this serve your purpose? What else would you like? Thanks, --Moon Rising 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josh, I know you're busy in real life, so I'm not surprised we haven't heard from you yet. There is one editor (the main reason we're looking for informal mediation) who has stated he does not agree to informal mediation and wants to go directly formal arbitration. I've left him a note saying that that is the last step in DR and hope he responds positively, but regarding this editor, it is unusually difficult to assume good faith. What do you suggest? Hope you don't regret having gotten involved with us. Most of us have fun with editing, even those of us with differing biases. Anyway, your comments, and any participation you may have time for, would be appreciated. Regards, --Moon Rising 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been much busier than anticipated I will comment in detail on this later tonight (East Coast time). JoshuaZ 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to rush you, just to let you know that an editor rejects the idea of informal mediation. Not assuming good faith on my part, I read his post as wanting formal arbitration, rather than formal mediation. From what I can tell, there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the two type of mediation, is there? Anyway, take your time, we're not going anywhere....fast....Moon Rising 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Herschelkrustofsky
Would you be willing to place the ban? I could, since it's non-controversial, but it'd be nice to have a fresh admin do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, many admins have had a hand in this. Most single purpose accounts eventually give up and go away, but HK has been one of the most enduring and single-minded editors we've ever had. I wish he'd just create a "LaRouche Wiki" to channel his energies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I doubt I'll comment right now because my opinion on the matter is very divided. JoshuaZ 12:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your offer on Blogunder Schlock
Thanks for your offer. However, I don't think it'll make any difference; it's obvious from the RfC stemming from the incident that ran me off of Wikipedia that my concerns are not those of the WP power structure, and that nobody cares about indiscriminate destruction of others' hard work. People will insist on misreading my concerns as non-support for WP:BLP, rather than what it really is. All I asked for was that admins doing WP:BLP removals remove only material that truly runs afould of the policy by being both unsourced and negative. Apparently, that's too much to ask. -- Jay Maynard 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications on Veropedia
I don't want to violate WP:AUTO and edit the article myself, so I'll just clarify something for you. I wrote roughly half of the initial code (along with Eagle 101). Since then, additional developers have come on board and I've been able to devote less time since I've started my job. So it's unfair to everyone else who's put work in to say I've done a full half of what is currently written. -- Cyde Weys 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 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 05:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you around?
Hi, I'm still having trouble with User:Gnome Economics. I've reported it here Editor_assistance/Requests but would like you to take a look at it. Cheers --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to intrude, but this is being addressed at WP:ANI <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use and image deletion
Hi, it appears from the Yale Economic Review talk page that you may have been involved in a decision or discussion related to YER's page. I hope you do not mind a question about YER on an unrelated topic, to wit: our use of our own cover images.

Apparently, a bot tagged our cover image for quick deletion unless additional information was provided. Following the guidance provided by the tag, I left comments on the image talk page for editorial review (they appear below). The image has since been deleted and I cannot tell if my comments were properly reviewed before deletion. I can only assume that Wikipedia allows copyright holders to license the use of their own products to themselves - so I suppose the image may have been removed because of some lack of formal acknowledgment or missing information. In any case, I am a bit confused and wonder if you can help me understand how to avoid this happening in the future - until then we will not replace the deleted image. Sincerely, Rich

Image talk:Fall 2006 Cover.jpg Dear Editor(s),

It has come to my attention that additional information is required regarding the fair use of this image. By my admittedly limited understanding, fair use, as defined by the information you provided in the notice on the "image" page, is achieved when 1) the magazine cover is used to illustrate the publication itself and/or 2) the name of the publication is prominently displayed on or above the image. Both are the case here.

I am YER's Editor-at-Large and one of its founding members. The so-called author of the image, Edward Featherstone, is one of our former Editors-in-Chief. We would like to update our cover image from time to time, so please explain what we must do to ensure this will remain possible.

Thanks, Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcelain808 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Careful what templates you use
Sorry, I was using an automated tool, WP:NPW, and I accidentaly posted the harsher vandalism warning. It was a mistake, I ment to post the second warning. ff m  20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please block an account
Greetings JoshuaZ, I've just visited a vandal user page to request that the person in question desist in wasting people's time and energy, and see that he/she has been vandalising a lot of articles in a sort of race against time. I notice you had already blocked the account indefinitely once before (I don't understand how it can be activated again, but that's beside the point). I would appreciate it if you could do something about it. I have no knowledge whatsoever of such Wiki matters and am therefore unable to do it myself. Thanx in advance for your help. Regards, --Technopat 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanx for your prompt reply, JoshuaZ. Sorry if I confused you over the timing, but I was so overwhelmed by the sheer number of pages that had been vandalised in such a short space of time that I didn't notice the time/date of your block. Is that kind of activity "normal" in your administrator world? Nice to know you guys/gals are on the ball! Thanx again. Regs., --Technopat 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas/Sarah Williams
I see you blocked per checkuser. Would you mind reviewing Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas to draw a conclusion about MarkThomas? Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, JoshuaZ. You blocked MarkThomas for attempting to evade an existing block. Did he log in as a different user and, if so, do you know what user account that was? Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it this? -- Jreferee    t / c  02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is a newly discovered sock! I posted an update at Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas. -- Jreferee    t / c  04:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
Hi Josh. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BallinEurope
Hi Josh. I am replying to your message on my user talk. The blog is used as a reference on these sites Maslowski33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowski33 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Union for Traditional Judaism
Some anons have been deleting content suggesting that the UTJ and its founder once had more liberal views than they do now. Is this content reliably sourced? I think so, but I wrote it, so I may be biased, and the sourcing isn't great so its debatable and they may be right in some cases. I lay out the issues in Talk:Union for Traditional Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'd appreciate it if you'd look at and offer a comment about the reliability of this source: on Talk:Union for Traditional Judaism. After I had agreed that the source was insufficiently reliable and deleted a statement based on its claim that the UTJ permits microphones on shabbat, editors have now modified the article using it as a source. Is this a reliable source or not? One can't have it both ways. Since I'm involved I'd appreciate an unbiased opinion. Personally I would ordinarily use it (with an "according to" for disputed claims) but agree it does not have as much reliability as I'd like. It is independent. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: The user wrote on User talk:Shirahadasha and made the very interesting argument that while the source is not reliable to establish a fact, it is reliable to offer an opinion. How rabbinic! Perhaps you might want to comment. I'll copy the comment to the article talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
Hi JoshuaZ. The Fellowship of Friends article has been stubbed and protected because of supposed Conflict of Interest (COI). Since you were willing to help mediate the article, I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 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 07:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Copyright violating anon
This is what I found by looking at the websites he is taking it from, he gives the references to them, but doesn't understand he can't copy-paste, but by any means if you think it's not a copyvio you can remove the report, it's not an article I contribute to much. It's just that if a copyvio is left in place and then other people add to it, it becomes harder to fix. One thing that in my opinion shows a copyright violation is if the text contains words such as "us" or "our" especially when the user is known to have repeatedly copy-pasted from internet sites. Jackaranga 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See also http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-aacoa.html for a site duplicates some of what he is writing, I'm thinking maybe that is even where he is copying it from. Jackaranga 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Howdy JoshuaZ, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Crank
Including British subject and possibly British poster? Wily D 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Endspoiler Template
Hi JoshuaZ, you just overturned the deletion of Template:Spoiler; could you please undelete Template:Endspoiler aswell (this was deleted at the same time), I would recreate it myself, but I'm not sure precisely what was there before (I can't see the history of deleted pages). Thanks Tomgreeny (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's involved & early close of Spoiler Template DR
The Nov 2007 Spoiler Template Deletion review opened 23:09, 14 November. You just closed it at 18:58, 18 November, after 3 days, 19 hours, 49 minutes. Deletion review#Closing_reviews says: "'A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days.'" If my math is correct, this deletion review has 1 day, 4 hours, 21 minutes left to run. Your early process-abuse close self-referentially cut off my reply posting concerning the long string of process abuses visited on the spoiler topics since May 2007.

Not only that, you are listed as an involved administrator at List of administrators present at previous TFDs/MFD/Deletion Review related to spoiler warnings. You shouldn't have closed at all per COI rule 3 "3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." Unless, of course, you are taking the wikilawyer stance that your vote at the TFD which began 2006-05-04 is not technically a "discussion"? It doesn't matter what your vote was, you do not have the COI-appearance of neutrality, and you have made a bad process abuse situation even worse.

I call for you to revert yourself and reopen the Nov 2007 Spoiler Template Deletion review. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 20:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Copied from User:Milomedes)
 * "I've reverted my close for now since I miscounted how many days the DRV was open. I will however say that I find the notion that I am involved administrator for this purpose to be ridiculous. I was involved in making comments at that discussion and as you should be able to see from it changed my mind repeatedly on the matter. JoshuaZ 21:15, 18 November 2007"
 * (In reference to Template talk:Spoiler#DRV finished. deletion overturned for now. Relisting optional)
 * "And a small amount of advice- making comments such as "If admins don't have to obey rules for admins, why are there any admin rules at all? How about just stating straight out that rules only exist for serf editors, and that feudal-hierarchy admins can do anything they please?" is not productive or helpful and frankly will cause fewer people to listen to you. JoshuaZ 1:58, 18 November 2007"


 * It's not just you, or just me. Process abuses have been the central issue in the spoiler topics since last May 2007. Read Process is important which reflects my views on why this is important.
 * Not being listened to can't get much worse for the pro-spoilers. In 1,850,000 bytes of debate, the counter offer to pro-spoiler compromise is invariably 'our way or highway', because anti-spoilers have no reason to compromise as long they can get away with process abuses — most especially the abuse of manufacturing consensus. Other people agree with me that ongoing process abuses — being the very cause of the deletion review — are a substantial problem that show no sign of abating.
 * "not productive or helpful" If you had simply acknowledeged that you should have followed Deletion guidelines for administrators rule 3 you would have become a small part of the solution, rather than continuing to be a small part of the problem. Therefore your disregard of rule 3, is worthy of my comparison to feudal history.
 * What's worse than a de facto feudal system is pretending that it isn't one. The Code of Hammurabi was harsh, but for the first time in the history of civilization, the underclass knew what the offenses were and how they would be punished for transgressing them.
 * One of the anti-spoiler proponents keeps justifying abuses with words to the effect of 'that's the way it is'.
 * Ok, if that's the way it is, I'm proposing to delete rules that you and other admins refuse to obey. If you think that doesn't look good, we're in agreement — but 'that's the way it is', partly because of your recent actions. If you want to be productive or helpful in cleaning things up, start with your mirror.
 * As stated previously prior to my sig, I prefer to keep the dialogue here, please.
 * (Please reply here if desired) Milo 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Copied from User:Milomedes)
 * "You seem to be missing my point. Having made a set of comments about an issue a while back does not make an admin involved by most standards. If you want to argue that a stricter level of non-involvement is necessary in this case due to its controversial nature you might have an argument. But that is a distinct claim. JoshuaZ 00:34, 19 November 2007"
 * Since you have refused my request to keep the dialog together here, and it's a community issue anyway, I have responded to your essentially similar point on the Template talk:Spoiler#DRV finished. deletion overturned for now. Relisting optional page. Milo 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review Closing
I wanted to thank you for your cogent and even-handed closing of the Template:Spoiler deletion review. While I might disagree with your aesthetic opinion regarding the tag itself, and on the relative importance of procedural discussions, your comments were greatly appreciated. Thank you again. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Template:Spoiler TFD
JoshuaZ, I see you began to close the deletion review and then reverted your closure, but I think you should probably let another admin do it due to your prior involvement with the issue. If the TFD was closed by an admin with a conflict of interest, we don't need the deletion review closed by an another admin with a possible conflict of interest. I feel that your decision was rational and reasonable, but the closure should probably not be done by an administrator that appears on this list. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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 (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 4) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 5) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 2) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews
You may be interested in commenting at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 <sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)  02:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Giovanni di Stefano suggestions
Can I advise you to wait until Jimbo and Fred Bauder have commented on your version before adding it? They are both watching the page, on and off, but may be busy right now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 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 (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. &mdash; Sebastian 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet
I apologize for my harsh words. Maybe you could advise me on the right course of action, because he seems to be constantly bullying other editors and attempting to hijack any article that mentions LaRouche. Also, did you send him a similar message about his personal attack against Terrawatt at "Views"? --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re
I wanted to run at RfA for a variety of reasons outlined within the page. Did I do any harm with it? I dorftrottel I talk I 02:06, December 4, 2007
 * But I were not trying to "accomplish" anything in particular. One (minor) reason not mentioned there is that I recently saw a user tell another user that he'd watchlisted that page just in case (so as not to miss out on opposing me), and suggested the other do the same. That was what gave me the idea initially. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:18, December 4, 2007
 * It probably contains several points (although I wouldn't know which ones, exactly), but it's certainly not very disruptive (as in WP:POINT), or otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Actually, going for a real RfA would be much more of a WP:POINT, because I know that it's a foregone conclusion anyway. The way I did it, I saved the community trouble going there and opposing. As to sockpuppets, please see my disclosure subpage (also linked to from the RfA and from my userpage). I dorftrottel I talk I 02:31, December 4, 2007

FYI, happening at WP:AN now. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:44, December 4, 2007

please wait to edit
Hello, please, could you wait before editing the passage I'm making - to meet the needs of various persons who wanted citations? Im working to do just that, and you are rewording my text, which is fine when I'm done but you are making these verbal changes when I'm adding substance and people are reverting me to you. Please hold off for about 20 minuntes, or less, and I'm done. Thx much 85.5.180.9 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? JoshuaZ 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 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 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections and Durova
The uproar surronding the Durova case was not about one bad block, "quickly overturned". It was about self-appointed slueths using secret methods to spy against editors who have not done anythign wrong, and perversly using their high quality contributions as evidence against them. That you "have not seen any serious wrong done here" tells me you are unsuitable as an arbitrator. Isarig 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your clarification. Checkuser is used "to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects"- i.e - only when there is evidence of some wrongdoing. If you support the use of secret evidence and secret methods against editors who have done nothing wrong, you are not suitable as an arbitrator, and probably not as an adminsitrator, either. Isarig (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Email
Replied. <font color=#12A434>Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement regarding Durova/!! matter
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Joshua,
 * Thanks for your note on my talk page. I appreciate the time you took to contact me. I have read your new statement regarding the blocking of user:!! and the secret mailing list. In that statement, you wrote: "A while ago there was a certain banned user who cares a lot about a certain topic. That user liked to use a certain word that is not at all a common one in modern English. Twice I saw users show up in the same topic who seemed to know wiki-markup and used the rare word that the banned user used."
 * In your comment to me on my talk page (reproduced above), you used the word "user's" to indicate the plural of "user". Of course, the plural form of "user" is "users"; the possessive form is "user's". You created this typo on countless user talk pages tonight. Joshua, I specifically mention this because it is a bit of grammar that could be used to identify potential sock accounts. However, if I blocked your account indefinitely because you used the word "user's" to mean "users" just like a certain vandalism-only account did, that would be preposterous. The block would be overturned immediately. Durova's block was the same sort of thing: a block of a very good user based on super-secret "evidence" that was flat-out wrong. This secret mailing list only created paranoia and fostered an atmosphere resembling a witch-hunt. The Accused had no way of defending themselves from false accusations, because the accusations were made secretly, with no chance of an appeal (you can't appeal what you don't know).
 * Wikipedia processes should be open and available for review whenever possible, especially when dealing with long-time contributors. I believe there is already too much secret politicking on Wikipedia. I don't want to see it from admins, and I certainly don't want to see it from arbiters. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to support, thanks. T (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I kept my vote as oppose. I think what Durova did was terrible. Your follow up explanation just made it worse. Xdenizen (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this situation, like many other controversial blocks and bans, is that the current system is not fault tolerant. We need a system of blocking and reviewing blocks that is still reasonable even if the blocking admin is There will ALWAYS be false positives. However, we can endeavor to build a system that accommodates the foibles of human nature, which always exist. This is true no matter how carefully we try to choose our admins.
 * mistaken
 * tired
 * not impartial
 * confused
 * capricious
 * in a bad mood
 * given false information
 * acting out of malice
 * immature
 * ill
 * angry

Let's face it; even the criminal justice systems humans have produced around the world make mistakes all the time. We try to build in checks and balances to avoid mistakes, but as the DNA evidence that released a large fraction of people on Illinois' death row showed, mistakes happen even if you spend millions of dollars trying to avoid them.

In criminal law, there is the well known quantity called the Blackstone ratio that attempts to measure this problem. Engineers use the more sophisticated notion of a receiver operating curve to investigate this phenomenon. Statisticians talk about type I and type II errors in the same context. Take a look at the statistical control theory of Deming and others. This is nothing new; we just have to step back and look at the reason we are having these problems, and try to adjust accordingly. And a witch hunt and various accusations and counter-accusations is probably not a reasonable thing to do in response.

If we insist that admins never make a mistake, fewer and fewer will be willing to use their administrative tools for fear of making an error. Also, we will allow fewer and fewer people to become admins for fear that they will not be up to the Hurculean standards we are setting for them. This unfortunately is to the detriment of the project. I suggested some ideas for building a more fault tolerant system at the village pump board on policy. This needs to be a more reasoned serious discussion. --Filll (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo?
Hi Joshua. You said, "but people who are notable precisely because they have taken actions in the public sphere simply have the same rights" Did you mean "do not have the same rights"? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. I'll go correct that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Braun
a user is vandalizing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Braun&diff=176919875&oldid=176911517         another person apparently not looking at all edits claims this user is doing it in good faith can the vandal be blocked--Java7837 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much--Java7837 (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good
Your analysis of SPOV/NPOV was very thoughtful and insightful. In fact it even made interesting reading, which is not something one expects from such answers. Thanks. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wheel waring
Firstly, I am no-one's lacky, and incivil personal attacks are not the way to carry on this debate. Secondly, your reversal of my admin action before we concluded the discussion was unhelpful and unnecessarily rash. Hopefully we'd have found a way through this by discussion rather than by wielding the tools. There wasn't any harm in us pausing to talk.--Docg 09:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You were technically right about the GFDL. However, a solution has been found, the history is now moved to a subpage of the target article. Thanks forthe concern.--Docg 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science
Thanks for stepping in at the page, even though it is now locked with the crappy edit. :/ Can you take a look at these two versions and tell me whether mine was or was not an improvement? I worked for a couple of hours to clean it up with NPOV in mind. Other people (who apparently have a personality conflict mainly with another user who supports the changes, are forcing a revert war.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, apparently I was tricked somehow. I'm going to stay out of this one.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a long story, but it all amounts to a misunderstanding and getting caught up in some headbutting among other editors.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 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 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I was trying to remember whether that editor was banned, though the thought didn't occur to me until after I had replied. -- Kendrick7talk 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref templates
Hi there. I saw this mailing list post, and I thought you might be interested in looking at how things are done at Template:ME-ref and Template:ME-cite. I don't know how many other WikiProjects do this, but for specialist areas where a fairly limited number of books will be referred to over and over again, it does help to reduce the proliferation of text inside the ref tags. Hope this helps. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That looks useful. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brandt
Hi,

I have no objection to your doing that, but I've refrained from doing so in expectation of someone opening an RfD soon. Although Doc's "solution" is no longer necessary -- in light of the DRV -- it does preserve the GFDL record, as far as I can tell, so I don't feel compelled to alter it immediately. You are welcome to do so, as nothing in the DRV result restricts the history to any particular form. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am discussing your involvement in the repetitive undeletions of the article at WP:AN. Your input as to why you have been consistently undeleting the article despite the subject's requests as well as the community's consensus is requested.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to DRV for even just the history, I guess. Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18. And cheers to JoshuaZ for having some common sense. -- Ned Scott 12:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Since you previously offered, I thought I'd alert you to this. Contemplating now, but just so you know :) Cheers, &mdash; <font color=#12A434>Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 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 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL issues
All fixed. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Alliance Radio Network
I have paid careful attention to the conflict of interest guidelines. I've had people asking me about COI ever since I wrote the article, two years ago. Nobody has yet found any actual conflicts.

Mitchberg (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour
We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Meetup/NYC. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Republican In Name Only
An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican In Name Only, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Republican In Name Only (second nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 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 (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A7
OK, thanks for the FYI. <font color="C154C1">Kei <font color="9955BB">lana (recall) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock of Appraiser
I've lifted the autoblock of that appears to be collateral damage from the block of, FYI.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unblocked again.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I unblocked and reblocked with the anon-only option, since  keeps getting hit with the autoblocker.  Apparently, the IP address is used as a proxy by a large company here, so there are doubtless several other users being affected.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Meetup/NYC. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Most of this user's edits seem to involve adding links to http://www.ozTorah.com and the views of Raymond Apple (rabbi) to various Judaism articles. This seems to be at least borderline WP:LINKSPAM. I'm having a hard time figuring out which side of the border it is. The editor has also made leaps that seem to go beyond this source including presenting this rabbi's opinions as fact, and the source's reliability seems a bit borderline. But I'm mostly concerned about ensuring that Judaism articles don't get spammed with this Rabbi's opinions. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit busy today but I'll take a look later tonight. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been doing it for months. When he gets a warning, he drops that account and creates a new one to continue. See here. I have removed the links and blocked most of the socks. There may be more socks that I haven't unearthed yet. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Sorry I missed it. I was hoping to meet you... :) -- Y not? 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd buy you your choice of a latte, a kosher steak, or a beer (assuming you're of age). I'll email you my contact info. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts and stuff
Mmm well. The rephrasing of "99.85% of scientists polled accept evolution" to "0.15% of scientists polled accept creation science" (which was actually a better reflection of what the cited source said) was reverted a few times. I still regard that as an innocuous edit I made, and no cause for an edit war.

Also, on an almost completely unrelated page, I made a totally innocuous edit that merely clarified a definition, and found that my main opponent, Filll, reverted it 9 minutes later. That was probably what got me feeling like I was suddenly being "targeted". Evercat (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, though see this. Evercat (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Email for you
Partial only, let me know if all's okay and I'll address the detail of it.

Best,

FT2 (Talk 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions
I am here to discuss two items regarding an edit. First, you reverted more than what was indicated in your edit summary--but no harm,  fixed it.  Second, for my instruction, and accepting your assertion "he is open that it is him (I've talked to him via email about this and other things", what is the point of keeping  in the article?  Have his edits not yet been vetted, and reverted if necessary?  Or once there has been a possible COI, do we keep warnings in perpetuity?  Is this a sort of skull on a stick to warn others?  <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners C·U·T 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Robots in Futurama
Hi, there's a deletion review happening for this here. Since I saw that you were concerned about it, I thought I'd let you know. Torc2 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
I replied (part) to your email, but didn't hear further, or, if you replied, didn't get your reply.

Did you get mine?

FT2 (Talk 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't get it, so thank you :) It's not in email spam either. Can you resend? Thanks. Last, as said, I am willing to send you the full details, if you need it, to back it up. I'd rather you satisfied yourself than had a question.


 * Best


 * FT2 (Talk 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marsden
Marsden never said she didn't like that specific content just before Christmas; from what I gather, it's the opposite. Also, the current version is incompatible with NPOV - half the article is controversy, and poor at that - for one, there's no need to write a full paragraph of her opinion on leaving FOX when she says it's nothing at all, and two, there is really no controversy if both Red Sun and Marsden agree they both parted seperate ways. I don't think the Hovind argument works either - he got criticism from both sides of the Creationism debate and is currently serving a prison sentence. Marsden is a conservative accused of harassing her lovers twice. Apples and oranges. Will (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of realised that the Red Eye thing might have some bearing on the article. I removed the quote though as a summary sentence would be a lot better and not try to push any kind of POV. Will (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm re Marsden
Two Wikipedia admins, CrzRussian and Bucketsofg, came very close to being de-sysopped last time this case went to arbcomm. It's going there again, and I will definitely be asking for your de-sysopping as per the arguments made on the request for restoration of the page. Mike Bate (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the application and asked that you be de-sysopped. Mike Bate (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are not negotiable. Mike Bate (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy
Hi, as an uninvolved editor, I recommend that you don't make edits like this one which is borderline vandalism. Regardless of what disputes you are having about the wording, edits like this are not called for. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On this basis alone, I don't think ANYONE can accuse me of vandalism. I will furthermore add that upon receiving an invite to rectify this very edit you will notice that I promptly righted it. Why bring this up 24 hours after my correction? To what avail? Were I a vandal, my behaviour would have been different. I fully realise that the world is full of vandals and that some newbies will behave as vandals but why is everyone around here SO aggressive towards well-meaning newbies, such as myself? Is it SO difficult to distinguish between well-meaning newbies and the vandalic element? As regards the future, I would like to further help out in this project but I don't particularly care for the hostility shown me; quite honestly I also don't care for people reverting the scientifically sound things I'm trying to add, on the basis of it not being referenced, just to go back to non referenced drivel. Why not just add "citation needed" or some thingy to that effect, without deleting it entirely? That might give me, or someone else, a chance to add the necessary references. Otherwise I have many other things to be getting on with and will gladly wish all the WKP "expert" editors all the best with their project. Thanking you for your kind attention. --Drrem (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, sir, but if you check my contribution to date I think you will find some interesting stuff; I believe I've been helping out more than a little.

Vampire is now featured!


It takes a lot of time to review an article and comment on it for an FAC - so although to you, your comments on the Vampire FAC may look small, they are greatly appreciated because I know the effort it takes to participate. Again, thanks - your barnstar is well deserved/ :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand and Tu Bishvat
I'm having an edit dispute with User:Gilabrand. The reason is that after I rewrote the article to add in the concept of Orlah and the role of Tu Bishvat in dating fruit for this purpose, Gilabrand edited it to remove all mention of this content other than in a single section called "Ancient Jewish sources" saying that Orlah is mentioned in the Mishnah, and removed all my sources (which weren't very good but were OK on a quick internet-search basis) discussing its contemporary use and how Tu Bishvat is used in dating. Gilabrand wrote in Talk:Tu Bishvat that Orlah simply isn't relevant, "This is an article on Tu Bishvat, not Orlah") Would you take a look at this and offer a third-party opinion? I gather Gilabrand regards me as some sort of right-wing nut (It's the first time I've been called a "black hatter".

I had also moved most content on the Tu Bishvat seder to its own article, the reason I did this was to enable a more comparable weighting of the different approaches to the holiday because detail on the specifics of the seder seemed to me to be overwhelming the article content, since there's otherwise less to say even though other approaches to the holiday are also significant. Gildebrand may have misinterpreted this as ideological disagreement with the concept of a Tu Bishvat seder. You might want to take a look at this as well.

I may be wrong in perceiving Gildebrand's removal of content on Orthodox (and Conservative) religious viewpoints as policy violations rather than simple content disagreements; I realize my role in the edit dispute precludes my acting as an admin here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh
What's wrong with it? It just sounds like he got off to a bad start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2L84UBB (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see him as a totally bad guy. I just wanted to give him a tip, to keep on editing. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2L84UBB (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
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 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

quick note re your comment at the DRV
HI - thanks for entering your comment at the DRV for Adult-child sex.

I wonder if you left out a word you intended to include, where you wrote:

The argument that it was POV fork was well-rebutted in the AfD nor has it been well-rebutted here.

Did you mean it was not well-rebutted in the AfD?

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I thought I should point it out in case you want to re-edit.

have a good one - --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult child sex DRV
I think you left out the word "not", your rational contradicts itself atm. Viridae Talk 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin - question
Responded on my page. Cheers. -- VS talk 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably still watching but if not please return and comment on additional input if you wish.-- VS talk 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI
Just wanted to let you know I'm back at Wikipedia. Hope 2007 was a productive year for you. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory
Is this pseudoscience? Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. But I feel like I am in an awkward position.  A few years ago I got into a flame war at a closely related article which I hope you will look at - Early infanticidal childrearing.  Someone has been cleaning up the article and I hope they are doing it to bring it in line with policy but among other things he archived all the talk with the debate over the validity of the article.  In short I bring baggage to any discussion and thin it could benefit from some more objective, experienced views.  Thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does EIC merit a speedy delete? As I was involved in an older edit war I would not be the one to do it.  Or do you think I should nominate it for deletion? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, given my history in the edit war, I don't feel like I can do anything. I would appreciate it if you would take whatever action you think most appropriate, in terms of our content policies and encyclopedic standards.  I would ask you to provide time for some discussion - I made RfCs to draw in a wider group of editors, and perhaps you could invite opinions from other editors you respect.  I frankly think that the Psychohistory article is an embarassment to Wikipedia but could possibly be saved, though it would require a major overhaul based on serious research (there really is something called psychohistory in academia ... it just isn't what this article is really about).  The Early infanticidal childrearing article, however, is, in my opnion, just soapboxing, the kind one wishes were limited to uninformed and uninteresting blogs.  Maybe I am asking too much of you - I do appreciate the attention you have already given it.  If you could follow through over the next several days I'd appreciate it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See AfD at Articles for deletion/Psychohistory. Wryspy (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
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 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dobby & the House Elves
I've suggested userfication of this article - is this a good idea?? --Solumeiras (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please can you put a copy into their userspace for them to work on, and inform them about it?? Also, do you still want to nominate me for Requests for adminship, as you said ages ago?? Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthington vs Sarfati
Worthington vs Sarfati. I think this is a good example of where it is a mistake to assume that news coverage alone makes someone notable. I can see no good reason to keep Worthington over Sarfati. Yet, it is significantly harder to find news coverage for Sarfati, does this make him less notable or Worthington somehow more notable? David D. (Talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New article
I'd love for you to come and discuss your revert with us at the corresponding talk page. This is a new article and it is kind of a mess. Just trying to get organized right now. Looking forward to it! -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More Fritz Schaefer drama
As someone who has worked on the Schaefer article, I draw you attention to this. User:Mipmip has described the Schaefer group as "not a prominent or historically important group in the field" when deleting an example on ab initio quantum chemistry methods. I did not revert it as I added it originally and it has been subject to a small amount of concern, although staying on that article and previously, before I moved it, on Computational chemistry, since April, 2006. Do you think it is anti-creation science bias, for a change? --Bduke (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I may have affected the formatting of a comment you made in the Corey Worthington discussion due to an edit conflict, if so I apologize. RFerreira (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Corey Worthington
This article is obviously contentious; under one of ArbCom's ruling, an administrator may delete an article "that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the [ WP:BLP ]". I acted under that precedent. This kid is under 18 and has a good portion of his life splashed upon the pages of our article. In addition, people have taken to using sources to speak poorly of the individual. That is simply unacceptable to me. I acted in good faith to what I saw was a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Many will disagree with my decision; however, there doesn't seem to be what ArbCom described as "clear consensus" to restore the article when it was deleted originally. As such, I've taken the highly unusual measure to delete the article immediately. I hope you'll respect my decision, even though you may not agree with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the United States, the age of majority is generally considered to be 18. Though, I realize Australia is a different country. However, that's neither here nor there. ArbCom states "this deletion may be contested via the usual means." (Sorry about these quotes, I know they're a bit obnoxious.) That would of course include WP:DRV. As long as the article is not restored, I have no issue with you taking it to DRV. Though, I imagine there will be some pushing for it to go to ArbCom.


 * As for people speaking poorly, "a "moron,"[10] and a "brat."[2]" is how he was described in the article I deleted. As simplistic as this sounds, it's simply not nice to call people names. That, factored in with his age led me to delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination
There is some ongoing brouhaha at ANI, not directly related to you, but revolving around one non-admin's strong desire to be included in Category:Rouge admins, subcategory of Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. For the sake of any coherence, I think it may be a good idea if you removed yourself from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests for the time being, unless and until you request the sysop bit back. User:Dorftrottel 12:11, February 13, 2008

Corey
Hiya. I think you and I agree about Corey Worthington, if you wanted to take it to some other level I'd be happy to support you. I'm getting kind of tired of fighting though, to be honest. --AW (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking
Hi Joshua. I think you have the situation backwards. The courtesy blanking was largely as a result of the links from news sites. The subject of the article (a 16 year old, we should remember) was discussed in a disparaging manner throughout the discussion and this was made available for the general public to read. While others may feel we owe living people no courtesy and respect when dealing with articles about them, I feel differently and so do many others. Wikipedia's obligation to these people is more than merely meeting legal formalities, but a moral one as well to deal with BLP subjects in a manner than we would hope to be dealt with ourselves. Blanking the discussion hides it from those who are merely taking a prurient interest while still keeping it available through the article history for those with a genuine reason to read the comments. This is surely transparent enough. The courtesy blanking was discussed at length at AN/I and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. I am comfortable with the decision to courtesy blank and have no intention of restoring the discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington
I'll reopen the DRV. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua, why are you spending your valuable time batting for this article? All the guidelines you cite are just that, they are not set in stone and this may well be the exception that proves the rule. You are trying to be ultra objective on a borderline case, that, in my opinion, needs some critical thinking, not just adding up a "score" based on some defined parameters that might even change in the future. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re. User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Mattinbgn article
It probably is unfair...hence the humour. Taking that page seriously really is as sad as the entire debate, IMO. Sorry if it offended you, but I'm glad it made you laugh nonetheless :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Amit_Sahai_suicide
Note that your comment was not a reply to me, but to another editor who stuck his comment in the middle of mine! Ros0709 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Userfied
User:JoshuaZ/Harvard store. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have done so. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's on Thomson Gale
OK, so I didn't actually schlep all the way down to Copley Square for the monthly Brandt-related AfD; I just used BLP's electronic resources (which does require a library card #). If you have a way of accessing Thomson Gale, it's Gale Document Number A1869678. It's only a paragraph, and beyond what I added to the article just goes on a bit about the tool's availability via telnet. The magazine's free archives only go back to 2000. Helpful? -- Kendrick7talk 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Please consider refactoring "hysterics". I understand it's a short step from vigorous argument to characterizing other people's arguments (both of which I've taken), but you've just taken it a step further, so please review. And I'll look at your essay today. Noroton (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

JW talk page
I've no desire to impede a proper discussion of the appropriate content of the article. You and I may disagree, but stable consensus is what's needed to be found here. However, the posts you replaced, were not "on topic" and at least one was a SPA trolling (quacking like a banned user). Cheers.--Docg 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Student Agencies
During this AfD, you had Harvard Store userfied to you so you could create Harvard Student Agencies and use the content. Did that happen? I ask because Harvard Bartending Course has some content that could help with the overall agency, as well as could be merged/redirected there. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries and no rush, I just figured it might be useful. I was about to prod it when I realised it might be relevant. Why I remembered the other AfD, I have no idea. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Results
I don't see another way to ask, so I am asking on your talk page. How do you access how many times a keyword has been googled? I saw that you referenced how many times hemo- was searched opposed to haemo- on the hemophilia page (biased by hemophiliac friend) and I would like to know how you find out those goggle results. Thanks!Chexmix53 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign
You're too fast. You noticed it just as I clicked edit this page. :) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Joshua, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coverage vs notability
I've noticed you using the coverage defines notability argument a lot recently (excuse that I am over simplifying your position). We discussed this a bit recently where I was going with the coverage should be independent of notability argument. During our last interaction we were talking about the specific case which diverted us from discussing the general idea. I think you're pretty thoughtful so I'd like to understand more about your rationale for there to be a closer correlation between coverage and notability. My guess is this all about making notability easier to define? I suppose I'm wondering whether this makes the encyclopedia too tied to the press and lowers us to their tabloid standards? David D. (Talk) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No rush Joshua, it's not a pressing issue. David D. (Talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy Wales
You really think the "Cabal approved" image is appropriate? Who's going to take that page seriously?

My request for bureaucratship
<div style="float:center;border-style:double;border-color:#01796F;background-color:white;border-width:2px;text-align:left;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;padding:8px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em;" class="plainlinks"> Dear Joshua, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Sumestest (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * HUH??????? Joshua, I guess you need to review the rules!  LOL.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts)
I've edited the guideline slightly in light of your comments on the talk page, and would appreciate it if you could check if I've captured the spirit of your suggestion. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content
This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. This is the full reason I removed it in the first place. If there is no source to back it up, it should not be included. Please see Admin Noticeboard. I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. Stealthound (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hey Joshua. I'd like to request you undo what you've done to my edits without asking me first. Here's my viewpoint on the situation. I did strike out the "nose-counting" part of RTFA's !vote, but left the more important part involved, and that is his argument about notability and Verifiable, Reliable sources. That's the part that can lead to consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of all of it
What's a greater personal attack? Giving Don Murphy his way is letting the terrorists win, or JoshuaZ has apparently edited abusively? How about we delete the whole section from "terrorists" down, or put it under a hat at the least. I think it's embarrassing to Wikipedia. Please don't make these kinds of comparisons again. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the purported personal attack before you had the chance to tell me to grow up. Classy.
 * Feel free to explain what happened. But seriously&mdash;the argument distracts from the point and isn't even sensible to people unfamiliar with the Israel/U.S. philosophy toward terrorism. It's sensible to say that rewarding bad deeds creates perverse incentives, so say that. He's a living person, so there's no need to be inflammatory. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok great. And for what it's worth, I've struck my vote. I do favor deference, and that is my position on Finkelstein, but this one seems like like it might be too big a name. The !vote might have been a knee-jerk reaction. I was especially angered by your comments because the MM mess was continually compared to a lynch mob, which offended me (as explained fully on WikBack). Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Marat Ayin
Hey, I just tried to link to Marat Ayin and it came up as a red link. Do you know if we have an article on it and I'm just not using the right transliteration or do we really not have an article? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tried a couple of searches including maras (not to be confused with the Salvadoran term for gang), came up with nothing (OK, I came up with the article on Central American gangs). Looks like I'm no better a searcher than you. Certainly worth an article if we don't have one. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

sig
Hope you like it, as it's the best I can do for the mo. <font color="#FF1493">special, random, <font color="#FF1493">Merkinsmum  00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
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 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple self-declared socks
Eh most of the info on the active ones can be found in my answer to question 12. Most of the rest are relics of abandoned ideas.Geni 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Normand
I have restored the last version without the unsourced claim. ... disco spinster   talk  20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ Reaches and Strains at Gnats to Stave Off Damnation
"can be construed as a personal attack" you say? Because the truth that those who keep deleting the truth about Darwin in their love for him are showing worship of Darwin by doing so? And how long will you use that excuse to bury the truth and ask that it not be shown? And what needs to be discussed when nothing in the article was not said without evidence or superfluous comments? In fact, you posting your unjustified warning can be construed as a person attack. And, "construed" by who? And is there something wrong with worshiping Darwin Joshua? Do you have a problem with Darwin-worship? And how about you and others discuss it BEFORE DELETING IT? Why the arbitrary AFTER? And what would you like to "discuss" about the evidence that would make it valid? So talking with me will magically make the evidence true? How silly, how childish. No, talking about a thing does not make it true. Learn what evidence means.

What typical atheistic logic to rage about "hidden agendas" and "hidden motives" in order to hide away the truth. Stick with evidence Joshua and learn what science means. Be objective Joshua and not hypocritical and arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire777 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Borderline notability and dead trees
If you have an idea for an easily verifiable standard that comes closer to your idea of borderline notability than dead trees then I'm all ears. Took me two weeks to come up with that last year and I really haven't heard anything better since. What I'm looking for is a clear bright line, applicable across the board, that could resolve gray areas of editor discussion and also make sense to non-Wikipedians. Durova Charge! 05:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Block warning
I just got threaded with a block for leaving a notice about the Brandt issue on ANI, the BLP notice board, and the village pump. You're just as concerned than I am, if not more, about these kinds of issues, so I got to ask.. have I gone crazy, or have they? -- Ned Scott 06:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV
You may have pointed in the wrong direction, but you're on the right track - a lot of calm from some of the more worked up individuals would go a long way :) Shell    babelfish 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don
I was a little unclear by point F. How does that play on the article space for biography articles as a whole? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ames
For the Adelbert Ames article, I see you have added a lot of footnotes, but have omitted the page numbers from the book you're citing. See WP:CITE for guidance. The way most of the ACW bios are written is to put book citations into the References section and then create each footnote in a abbreviated notation, such as "Budiansky, p. 6." I recommend that style to you for this article. It's clumsy to use the embedded style of citations you're using when there is more than a single citation to the same book. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll go back through and recite using the page numbers. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you
Ok, not only am I not the sharpest ref formatter in the box, I may be one of the dullest. You wouldn't happen to have a link to a "formatting wiki sources for dummies" link would you? :-) Thanks again Angry Christian (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you saying something to me?
Or were you saying something to the over 300 people who've downloaded this refutation of you're lies?:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/1264745

And so that everyone can see part of it here:

JoshuaZ said:

"Starfire, as I tried to explain to you Wikipedia cares about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Now, if you read that guideline, you may understand why in general AIG and many of the other sources you used are not reliable sources."

Hey JoshuaZ the liar, where does Wikipedia's policy say that AnswersInGensis.org is not a reliable source? Where JoshuaZ the vandal and liar? Show us. So you think saying, "Now" is scientific evidence that you are a wise and intelligent teller of the truth or that you know what a reliable and verifiable source is?

JoshuaZ, where does Wikipedia's policy say that the Jacob Sheep Association = a reliable and verifiable source that Jacob Sheep are biologically primitive you hypocrite? Explain that hypocrite who personally attacked Starfire777 using lies.

Show your references JoshuaZ. Saying, "Now" is not a reference that your accusations are true are they? Why can't you make sense Joshua?

Again, where did those verses prophecy anything? Do these look like prophecies JoshuaZ?:

Joshua also said:

"In this case, they did have sources, so you have even less of an argument."

Wrong JoshuaZ. Simply citing sources as you yourself said does not make the source valid. It must be substantiated and verifiable. Why do you conveniently forget that you smug babbling hypocrite?

Your later comments don't merit much of a response, but I wThen he said:

"ill simply note that accusing people of bigotry, bias, hypocrisy, irrationality and trolling makes my earlier comment about not using "Darwinist" as a slur somewhat irrelevant;"

Because you said so JoshuaZ, and whatever you said is true is true because you said so. So much for references eh? All you have to do is accuse and it makes you right, right hypocrite? See how you go round and round in circles using circular reasoning?

"if your earlier comment toed the line, the one above crosses it."

Because you said so JoshuaZ, and whatever you say is true because you said so. Science!

"I suggest you calm down"

I suggest you not use sarcastic insults like that, ok hypocrite? You're implying that the Starfire777 is ill-tempered merely because he points out that you are hypocrite and uses logic to do so (as well as verifiable references on Answersingenesis.com which you lied about not being reliable and being against Wikipedia's rules to cite), ok liar?

I suggest you also not command a Christian to follow your moral standards over Christ's, over God's. He is a Christian don't ya know? Are you now God to tell him how to feel and think? I suggest you read this verse and take it to heart which millions of Christians know very well so that you learn how not to offend them again:

"Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil." - Ephesians 4:26-27

Last time I checked JoshuaZ, neither your nor Wikipedia's rules superceded God's.

"and read the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines while you wait for your block to expire."

Oh the old "you need to read it but I don't" and "you sit and think while your grounded young man" insults. What an arrogant, childish hypocrite you are.

I suggest that you stop pretending that whatever you say is true merely because you said it, and again, learn what Starfire777 properly told you to learn.

I'll enhance the list for you:

Reference, evidence, truth, reality, lie, bigot, hypocrite, fallacy, circular reasoning, troll, stalking, harassment, insults, hatred, and love.

And Joshua also said:

"This is in addition to issues of original research in regard to Biblical prophecies and other issues on the Charles Darwin page."

Wow you sure like to weasel-word: "other issues"? What are you references for this vague "other issues" JoshuaZ the Policy Master of Wikpedia?

And Joshua, who said anything about prophecies? Where did Starfire777 say anothing about prophecies? No JoshuaZ the wannabe scholar, he said "predicted" in the same way that science can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment. If your lazy-brained truth-careless self had been paying attention to what he said CARE FULL Y you might have noticed that the verses were using PAST TENSE JOSHUA, not FUTURE TENSE JOSHUA. If you are unable to tell the difference between past tense and future tense, what business do you have playing judge? If you are unable to figure out the difference between multiple meanings of words and are quick to judge (that means rushing carelessly to judge) what business do you have being a judge? Big duh right there. Here you go Joshua, read the verses again, and please explain how you missed that they are past tense:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they BECAME [PAST TENSE JOSHUA] futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they BECAME fools, and EXCHANGED the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God GAVE them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God GAVE them up to dishonorable passions. For their women EXCHANGED natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Did those caps help Joshua? Were those big enough hints for you? And Joshua, since when is the Christian teaching that ignoring God leads to homosexuality, "original"? Are you blind? Did those plainly worded verses (they aren't metaphors genius) pose to great a challenge for your mind to understand? Where have you been while Christians for the past 100 years have been preaching that turing away from God leads to homosexuality? Well you fake religion expert? Well lying Joshua? Where ya been Mr. Judge of Christianity? Can we see your degrees in religion and Christian history oh Expert Judge JoshuaZ? Got any references for us that can be substantiated and verified? Lol. Not.

So, again, what business do you have judging?

Take a hint from God, your master who you are mocking and disobeying:

"Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Proverbs 26:12

Fool in ancient Hebrew means "very wicked person". So there is more hope for a very evil man then for you Joshua.

"A man who remains stiff-necked after many rebukes will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy."

Reference? From Proverbs 29:1, in the Bible, the best selling most archeologically and scientifically verified historical record in the world. Reference?:

See <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/eternia-20">Scientifically and Archeologically Substantiated and Verified Books Proving the Accuracy of the Bible</a>.

I suggest you play catch up with me, Starfire, and the other 30+ million Calvinists, including the scientists among them who you don't hold a candle to.

Joshua, lose the smug, bitter and hateful attitude and realize this truth: Just because you didn't call anyone a moron or hypocrite doesn't mean you are not personally attacking, not being hateful, and not insulting. Do you understand that truth Joshua? It's very simple, it doesn't take a genius to understand. Learn what "passive aggressive" means too.

Personal attacks are not whatever you say they are, nor is a personal attack unjustified if you are vandalizing Wikipedia. You, a PERSON, are attacking Starfire, A PERSON, on Wikipedia, so stop acting surprised when you are attacked back. Lose the God complex, the "Do as I say not as I do attitude" Joshua.

Note: JoshuaZ's lies against Starfire777 (lies which are ultimately against God) can be found in the "User Starfire777 Baited by Darwinists and Blocked" htm file which is in the "Banning Christian Editors Using Unsubstantiated Accusations" folder.

Made possible thanks to my Loving Helper. Now you go to your room and you think about your truth-hiding ways.Starfire777 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't believe in off-wiki correspondence
Quirky, ain't I? I'm supposed to be on wikibreak, so in the words of Dante I'm not even supposed to be here today. If this is about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" currently underway at this month's Daniel Brandt-related AFD etc. you'll just have to tell me what is on your mind unless it's far too nefarious. -- Kendrick7talk 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will wait on this, as I'm busy IRL, and as long as the redirect is going through this new deletion attempt. But there's nothing in policy, regardless, that would prevent me from workshopping a biography here in the interest of gaining support for a new consensus over time -- this is, after all, a protected page that's never been successfully AfD'd. Such a workshop would be all the more beneficial to the discussion as people insist on spreading falsehoods about whether an article on Daniel Brandt could be created in keeping with WP:N and WP:BLP. Vandalizing away evidence to the contrary isn't the proper way to handle this and I don't appreciate the sort of heavy-handed tactics I was subjected to on Monday by adminstrators favoring the status quo. -- Kendrick7talk 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm in no hurry right now -- and WP:There is no deadline. Certain editors can pretend a workshop would be disruptive all they want, and thus actually cause disruption in the process -- that wouldn't really effect my decision to do the right thing here :shrug: -- Kendrick7talk 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jufna
Yes, I remember seeing it in one of the sources in the article as "Jifna or Jufna", so I'm pretty sure they're the same city. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If I Never Get Back
Thanks, yeah, I didn't contest it because I really hadn't proven any notability and I can't really come up with any. It's just one of my favorite books. :) I appreciate the offer/information, though.  :)  <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of the admin nom, but I'm content where I am. Especially since I got rollback. :) I'll let you know if I change my mind.  <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

149.101.1.116
Already done, and I also left a note at WP:AN/I. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance
I know. I'm in the process of writing a 3RR report (but it's HARD!) on User:BD.Harvest. Should I continue? <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He just reverted you. I'm not going to get into an edit war over but, trying to put together a 3RR report is a real pain. I had it almost done, with three different tabs open in my browser to keep going back and forth between diffs and article histories and the 3RR page, and I accidentally did a page back on the page I was creating the 3RR report in and lost everything. :( <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just re-reverted him, but that's my final reversion. I've left a uw-v4 warning on his Talk page. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MassResistance
Joshua,

I don't think you understand what's going on. There are three main issues:

1. The person who keeps changing my page is a homosexual activist who maintains this website: http://asolis.net/2007/11/legalization-of-homosexual-marriage/ This site is extremely hateful; the person is not an unbiased editor.

2. MassResistance has done literally hundreds of things that could be mentioned. We could have a list of things a mile long. We have been praised by lots of well-known people such as Alan Keyes and Michael Reagan, for instance. We've also been called bad things by homosexual activists. To pick a small sample of negative things does everyone a disservice.

3. Southern Poverty Law Center is an extremist group that has named several conservative groups "hate groups". They admitted to us that we have not committed any overtly hateful acts, they just think we're hateful. If you include them here, then we should be able to do the same thing to the left-wing groups -- declare them "hate groups" and then edit their entries.

Unfortunately, if you're going to allow this to happen to me personally and our group, MassResistance, you will open the door to an enormous amount of edit warring from the thousands of supporters we have. Why not either (1) just remove our entries or (2) allow an entry that just describes the group?

The post you put up for MassResistance is NOT unbiased. It picks out a few negative "facts" among the hundreds of positive things that could be said.

Please at least give me some indication that you've read this. This really needs to be resolved before it gets out of control.

Brian Camenker

PS: Let me add something else:

1. There is a sentence in the posting:

MassResistance's website often targets the transgender community and they have been criticized for promoting anti-gay studies that lack scientific merit.

This is absurd. Some fringe website makes a statement about us and you insist on including it? Also, if you read their article carefully, it's clear that we're being called "Christian Right". Everything we've promoted DOES have scientific merit.

2. The blob "MassResistanceWatch" is run by two incredibly hateful homosexual activists who have threatened us in the past. At one point, we had to get the Attorney General involved from this activity. DO NOT include them on any serious posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcamenker (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcamenker (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am the founder and president of MassResistance. I put up a description of our group that states our mission, and some facts about us, that is brief and to the point.

I don't think it's fair that our posting continues to be vandalized by a person hostile to our organization, with very negative and possibly libelous descriptions.

The "hate group" label is particularly unfair. Southern Poverty Law Center is an extremely biased, somewhat fringe group that lists literally hundreds of conservative groups as "hate groups." Last week I personally spoke to their hate group coordinator about this, and he admitted to me that our "crime" is "demeaning a class of people", in his opinion. That is absurd!

The posting we put up is fair and reasonable, and accurately describes our group. It's unfair to allow it to be constantly vandalized in this way. Maybe it's better to remove the listing entirely.

Brian Camenker Bcamenker (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)