User talk:JoshuaZ

Talk Archive000

Important I prefer to keep conversations in one place. So if you send put a talk message on my page, I will respond there. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

Our RfAs

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoshuaZ. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting a webpage

Hola, on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you told me I had to get a webpage blacklisted. Could you tell me how that is done?Rosa 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Essjay Prodego ^talk 13:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guidelines/help needed

Hello, Thanks for showing me the way how wikipedia works. Maybe you can have a look at these articles, and investigate if they are written according to the guidelines:

Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Historical_overview:

The fragment “the present cabinet, which is one of the most right wing cabinets since the late 19th century” is far from neutral, but I could not convince the rest of wikipedia this was the case..

The article about David Irving contains a lot of negative editing against him. For example, o October 11, a user called user:Redzen put some intelligent-looking quotes from Irving on the page, and they were quickly removed. However, when Irving is making some stupid remarks, these remarks are still there (under ‘racism’). I am as much a fan of Adnan Oktar as of David Irving, but when one gets a neutral treatment, the other should get it as well.

Could you do something about these 2 articles? Thanks Jeff5102 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is WP:NPOV and WP:V. For example, in the Oktar article you referred to "absurd rhetoric." That's NPOV, and unsourced, essentially opinion. In the cases of the Irving and Netherlands the comments are sourced and not opinions of Wikipedians. For example, in the Irving article, it gives examples of his racist comments, it doesn't say "Irving is a racist ass whose only appeal is to idiots and brutes." Sourced, negative information does not violate WP:NPOV, general editorial remarks do. I hope that example clarifies matters. JoshuaZ 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Hi. I assume that the new proposed blocking policy hasn't been implemented yet? You can still slap a temp-ban on the user (User:65.197.192.130) though, can't you?

Question for you: What's to stop me (for example) from vandalising consistantly, and yet still contributing many useful edits to Wikipedia.. anonymously? --Mal 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, not much really. But if an anon IP is really bad, people will start to keep track of that IP's contrib list, to prevent large scale damage and will block much faster. Also, if an IP is sufficiently problematic, the provider may be contacted. JoshuaZ 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As I think you understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think that policy, as it stands, is not good enough. For example, I spent a few minutes having a look at the IP's contribs list, fixing the vandalised pages, adding a level 4 warning template, and following up afterwards (plus this discussion we're having). Instead of which, I cuold have been editing articles and otherwise contributing to the 'pedia. As it turns out, no action is going to be taken against this vandal (or vandals as the case may be).. so that has meant basically that my time has been wasted (other than to have fixed vandalism which shouldn't really have got through in the first place).

Don't get me wrong though - obviously I appreciate the work you (and other admins) put in to the alert pages and time taken to deliberate on issues etc etc. I just felt that I needed to vent my frustration at the policy as it stands. I'd love to hear your personal opinion and thoughts on the matter. Cheers. --Mal 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not an admin yet. But yes, I strongly agree that the current policy on IPs is not strict enough. JoshuaZ 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right.. I didn't reealise that anybody could deliberate on the Vandal alert page. Anyway ... have you taken part in the voting regarding the blocking policy? --Mal 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really I shouldn't have. The main reason I made the comment there was to make sure the admin who handled it knew that some good edits had been coming from that IP (which should be taken into account when determining block times). I haven't completely made up my mind yet about the new blocking policies. JoshuaZ 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade RfC

Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity0 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant is, write your own section in the "disputes" section detailing his actions. This RfC isn't meant to be about the specific dispute at any article, but the general pattern of behaviour he sometimes engages in when he meets opposition. -- infinity0 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to have time for that right now, and I think KillerChihuaha was talking about doing that. If she does add to the dispute section, I'll move my sig back up to basis rather than endorse. JoshuaZ 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pianka controversy

Thanks for adding the info about Pianka's response to Forrest Mims' comments. For my own edification, can you point me to a source? (It's probably _really_ obvious, but I can't seem to get Google to cough it up....) For that matter, could you also add the link to the Mims page when you get a chance? Thanks much. MarcoTolo 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there are a few sourced in the Pianka article. I'll go snag one from over there and move it to Mims. JoshuaZ 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to use talk pages

Hey Joshua

Please try to use "talk" pages when making changes to articles.

Although it isn't unheard of, it isn't the best etiquette to visit pages, and revert immediately. I'll assume you are acting in good faith on Ron Dellums, that is, that you came across on the article on your own and evaluated it, and determined what changes would be best, and made them. But, it might look a little better if the future you express your opinion as to why your changes are needed and also attempt to add meaningful content to articles.

That particular article has been frequented by users that know very little about Dellums and haven't shown any willingness to research the man.

Take care, Justforasecond 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pro-Lick

Hi Josh.

No, I didn't ask about the blog, and Pro-Lick didn't say anything about it in our communication. I'm honestly not too worried about it. Maybe you could suggest to Pro-Lick that taking that post down would be a sign of good-faith, and a good bridge-mending step? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Does it look OK to you now? --Dangherous 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

Joshua, I've asked you nicely to leave talk page messages to describe why you are making changes. I'd appreciate if you took me up on the offer.

Justforasecond 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be pretty obvious; the other version was the consensus version, yours was not. Furthermore, the others reasoning seemed sound. Hence I reverted to the consensus. JoshuaZ 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian nationalist editors

Hi Joshua. I see you have noticed the influx of Serbian nationalist editors, and are following closely. I originally tagged Zadar Kristallnacht for POV on my WP:NP patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following very closely. User:CeBuCCuCmeM popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created Template:Persecution of Serbs, which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Are you interested in investigating? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly unlikely that a first-day editor would know that templating exists, let alone how to create such a complex template.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been actually paying that much attention to the problem. Its just very blatant. In fact, until you mentioned this I had no idea about that template, or that new user. It may make more sense to discuss it here where sockpuppetry of this sort has already been brought up, [1]. JoshuaZ 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to bring it up at WP:RFCU. JoshuaZ 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but I can't really think of a match. Can I submit open-ended requests, or do I have to suggest a match. It could be any of the Serbian warriors.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one isn't allowed to go on general hunts, but if you have a plause example you can ask for him to check Bormalagurski for example, and note that its a general problem with the Serbian POV pushers, and they might turn up info on the checkuser that connects the sock to someone else. Slight gaming of the system, but acceptable. In any event, I would be highly unsurprised if this were Borma. JoshuaZ 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I know, I was just wrapping up my responses, thanks for being alert though :) -- Tawker 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rFA

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stumped. There was a question "What do you understand will happen at the end of this five day discussion process?" What on earth is this 5 day discussion period of which User:Robchurch speaks? The RFA is a 7 day discussion period. Have I missed something? --Dangherous 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.160.36.12

I've blocked 67.160.36.12 for 24 hours for vandalism, harassment etc. Please let me know if he continues to be a problem and I'll handle it.Gator (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, that is I think the same vandal that made the User:Joshuaz (note lower case z) impostor earlier. I really don't understand what his problem is with me, he seems to think I did something on some other forum he was involved in. JoshuaZ 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is one thing that Wikipedia does not do very well with--when the vandals themselves start giving out warnings. Keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Scientific community; The Kids Will Have Their Say; Hypothesis; Ex nihilo; The Genesis Flood; Hugo Claus; Infinity Watch; Francis J. Beckwith; Rumble in the Bronx; Creator deity; Divine simplicity; Neptunism; McDonogh School; No Answers in Genesis; National Center for Science Education; WCWM; Natural theology; List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors; Separation of church and state in the United States

Cleanup: Islamic creationism; Mathematical coincidence; Flathead Lake
Merge: Resurrection of the dead; Biblical cosmology; Bill Gothard
Add Sources: Post-feminism; Toba catastrophe theory; Extra-sensory perception
Wikify: Steve DeVito; Social Liberals (Austria); George Seddon AM
Expand: List of British entomological publishers; Random variate; God complex

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EAS

JoshuaZ,

Please review the Enterprise Audit Shell. Please understand that EAS is simply a new version of the EXISTING software sudosh which already has a wiki article. EAS == Sudosh. I've also updated the discussion page. Also note that Freshmeat, SourceForge and the Sudo maintainer have blessed Enterprise Audit Shell and that I have 3rd party validation. This isn't simply a small program, tooting my own horn, or spam. It's just confusing because of the name change from Sudosh to EAS.

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

For one amazing explaination on your support vote (and the great job of keeping the counts up to date) - Keep up the good work! :) Tawker 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have taken the liberty of moving the Barnstar to my Things page. JoshuaZ 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bribery

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

lol ; ) FloNight ^talk 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics in the Bible

" Among religions which treat these sciptures as divinely sourced, is there controversy as to whether some immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss, is controversial. " This is in the form of a declarative sentence, but the information content appears to be a question. Are you attempting to ask if there is controversey concerning if the fact that the Bible does not discuss some immoral acts might be controversial? I have reverted the paragraph because the current version does not make sense (or at the very least, is in no way clear). Dan Watts 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be "there is" rather than "is there" I'll fix it and revert back if you don't object. JoshuaZ 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I hope that you can change it so that there are not two usages of 'controversey' in one sentence.~~ That is much more readable. Dan Watts 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma's RfA

Hello, JoshuaZ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. It was interesting to think about your questions; I still am trying to figure out what my perspective on adminship from the WP:PNT point of view is. Anyway, if you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support

Hi JoshuaZ- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hey JoshuaZ, I replied to your comments on the talk page of AFD. Just wanted to let you know I've written my bot to update the yesterday pages from now on. Cheers! --lightdarkness^(talk) 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kilo's rfa

Thank you for your reminder. I have seen these answers.--Jusjih 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC

stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page

Read over the relevant articles and talk pages. It's not about a "vote", its about "fact-finding", and if you don't have the time for fact-finding, please stop vandalizing my talk page. pat8722 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall using the word vote. My point was simply that when many users (such as KillerChihuahua) who have been on Wikipedia much longer then you have tell you that you are misunderstanding the relevant policies and guidelines, it might be because you are misunderstanding them. JoshuaZ 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or it might be because I'm not. If you don't have the time to investigate, STOP [personal attacks deleted by [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda]MY TALK PAGE. pat8722 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I have looked into it, and Killer is quite correct. JoshuaZ 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes FACTS, not CONCLUSIONS, to establish "who" is correct. An unsupported conclusion is MEANINGLESS. Furthermore, an allegation of vandalism is not prohibited under the personal attacks rule. An allegation of vandalism requires "fact finding". As it appears a small cabal can result in blocks against one who is STRICTLY FOLLOWING ALL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, I suspect you will block me if I again revert your vandalism of my own talk page today. So I will be back tommorrow to revert your vandalism of my talk page, while awaiting a real resolution of the real dispute, over whether William Connelley [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. pat8722 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowingly false accusations of vandalism are person attacks. Please desist. While you may have misread the vandalism policy, it's been explained to you why that was not vandalism. Guettarda 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no wikipedia policy. Does JoshuaZ, or any admin, or other, have "power" to permanently stop a user from editing their own talk page? If he tries to do that, would I then have to find another admin to engage in what I think is termed a "wheel war", so that I can re-edit it again? It's seeming very arbitrary to me at present, almost like any admin can do whatever he wants and its all a matter of who is willing to be dirtiest and who is in a political majority. I also don't understand why you are blanking out the word "vandalizing", is there a list somewhere that says that it is a prohibited word? I don't see you blanking out "vandalism", just "vandalizing", how come? You can respond here, as I have placed this on my watchlist. pat8722 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the libertarian talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean? and see the libertarian talk page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see connelley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". What is the procedure for removing your unfounded warnings from my talk page, without fear of being blocked for doing so? pat8722 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on my talk page just now:

DBAD

Please read m:Don't be a dick (In this case we can mean dick to mean head louse rather than penis), so give it a break, please. It is boring. — Dunc|☺ 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to delete this under your definition of reverting "warnings"? pat8722 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be violating any formal rule by deleting it, however, in general removing comments from talk pages is strongly frowned upon without a very good reason. As for removal of warnings, if you can find an admin who agrees with you, that admin can presumably talk to whoever placed the warnings and then decide if they should stay or not. As a last resort, you can go to WP:ANI and make a complaint there, however I caution against it. I hope that helps. JoshuaZ 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, JoshuaZ!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e mp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RFA

It appears you voted on my RFA and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers --lightdarkness^(talk) 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, How did you know that was me? JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1337 hax! I checked the contribs of one of the other edits from the IP, saw you then edited with the edit summary "Whoops, wasn't logged in", and put 2 and 4 together to get 7. --lightdarkness^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello JoshuaZ. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎?

Chuck...

Good move... Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) Mikker ^(...) 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

password

I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- Curps 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your RfA

I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my RFA. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YECs

Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by Ken Ham, which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Wikipedia of something I have learned, I try to add it.

Since I am new to both Wikipedia and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. Liberty4u 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. JoshuaZ 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up

I've answered the questions that you posted here. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

So wait...are you an admin?--The i kiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Why did you think I was? JoshuaZ 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?--The i kiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. JoshuaZ 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just give me the word when the time comes and I'll do it.--The i kiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说話し parlar) 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tb2's reporting

What would you like to see? Any ideas? joshbuddy^talk 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years

Hello,

I've added the reference to the deletion review of List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years you asked for.

Regards, Nick Mks 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. JoshuaZ 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. As far as the copyright is concerned, the image was created and released by a Wikipedian as a merge of 50 NASA images. The astronomical reason that eclipses occur less often at the poles is relatively simple, why the South Pole is even more discriminated is less obvious. For more information, I recommend [2] and [3]. If the article is recreated, I will include the explanation in it. Nick Mks 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the new version will be an excellent article. JoshuaZ 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. JoshuaZ 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob

That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 4 on the Game

There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay's RfA

Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've answered your questions

I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question...

Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't really want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No strong preference, although if you answer it here you may want to put a note there that you are answering it on my talk page (and by the way, if you think an answer to it will muck up the RfA page you should take a look at Tawker's final RfA). JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think most questions can best be handled by directly asking the candidate themselves on their talk page, and Tawker's RfA was crazy. To be frank, my last RfA explains much of what happened in the past. To sum it up, I had an issue with a certain editor who tended to bring out the worst in people, namely, me. He did so, and I made a small personal attack on my user page. Then an Admin, Rhobite, scolded me and I attacked him childishly. I have apologized, and all parties have moved on. Gabrielsimon, the first editor, even supported me in my last sysop bid. Other than that, I've stayed pretty clean.

As to the handling of other contentious situations, I have dealt in some depth with Zephram Stark, a POV warrior with a cabinet full of socks. I have always treated him, and all his socks, with respect. I reprimand those that make personal attacks, including wikifriends that happened to cross the line. For a current sampling, you may want to see my dealings with Merecat at the Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I somewhat agreed with him on his RfC, but am fair and tried to nudge him in the right direction. You may also want to see my handling of User:Thewolfstar.

I have tended to haunt the American politics articles a bit, so I am no stranger to heated debate. I just try and keep things light and try to remind people, while remembering myself, what our purpose is here. I hope I have answered your question. For further info, you can see my contribs. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler notice

I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) Proto||type 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser degrees

How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they claim expertise in an area, especially when proposing controversial hypotheses, shouldn't their lack of credentials be identified? David D. (Talk) 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when they claim to have a "doctorate" (unaccredited) without the merits of a undergraduate degree. Arbusto 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandal i just blocked . . .

yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers --Heah? 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin

Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate project

Hi, I have noticed that you have been making lots of edits on Stargate related pages, however, your name was not on the list of participants in the stargate project. You are more active in stargate on WP than some people who are on the list. I thought you might want to join the project. Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whether you join or not, for your work in stargate I am giving you an award.

The Stargate Barnstar

This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Barnstar Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate.
--Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will add a copy of the barnstar to my barnstar page and will sign up on the project page. JoshuaZ 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on wikipedia come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution:

better articles are our goal, not better policies [4]

None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can have it for free if you can figure out which is correct: "Better articles is our goal" or "Better articles are our goals". That'll prove your worth as an editor. -W.

Maybe I should just attribute it you as you put it in the edit summary and then claim I was only quoting when the grammar police show up. I'm pretty sure "better articles are" since in English number is decided by the subject not the predicact nominative. JoshuaZ 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, "better articles" might be a collective noun. Now I'm not sure. Groan. JoshuaZ 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably will be different in AE and BE, like "team". Guettarda 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)

Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not an admin (though I'm flattered that I've managed to fool you) but I think allowing the article to stand while the DRV runs is actually a better idea, since the deletion was out of process. If the DRV decides the deletion was actually the right decision, which seems unlikely, it can be deleted then.-Polo tet 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help

Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on Cold Fusion. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, Jefffire 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. JoshuaZ 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm managed to impliment a lot of changes so it's not as bad as before. The article Cold fusion controversy is still in pretty bad state. Jefffire 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Séamus was working in the same lab as Fleischmann in 1989, he did some of the control algorithms for the reaction. He's now professor of bio- and electro-sensors at Cranfield University. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment

I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attacks

I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to WP:3RR as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was aware of that, I was actually planning on avoiding the article for at least 24 hours before I touch it again. JoshuaZ 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

I was hoping common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that you intended to delete it regardless of any outcome or discussion in the AfD? JoshuaZ 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped that the closing admin would do the right thing, but since that didn't happen, deletion was the only correct result. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the possibility that there was disagreement over whether or not the Belgian source was sufficient was irrelevant?

Most definitely. 1-It's a Dutch language article which requires you to register. 2-The translation was problematic. 3-The supposed article doesn't cite its own sources. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... since when do newspapers EVER cite their sources? There's a picture of article anyways -- if you had taken the time to read or search the extensive discussion page, you would have seen it. The translation's fallibility is another story. What made/makes you think so? brabblebrex 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and you didn't discuss this with Prodego why?

Would it have led to Prodego changing his/her decision? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha Kernow 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kernow, What point are you trying to make? JoshuaZ 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just joking. Your and Zoe's attitudes to Wikipedia are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum. It makes an amusing read. Kernow 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is what is going on. I think the issue is not about "tolerance" more unilateralism (and possibly my lack of understanding Zoe's rationale for her unilateralism). JoshuaZ 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: PubMed, Cochrane collaboration, HONcode and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. ackoz 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would start a discussion on the talk page for WP:RS and make a note with a new header that on the village pump that a discussion on that topic is occuring there. JoshuaZ 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HealthDisclaimer

Hello JoshuaZ : ) Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, FloNight ^talk 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony, hypocrisy

"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page

"Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)[reply]

Just thought I'd be a dick and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the worst in existence. Have a nice day! brabblebrex 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, yeah. That rule refers to in article space and stuff that I'm going to bother doing drafts of. In talk space I'm really layed back and even end sentences with prepositions. JoshuaZ 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]