User talk:JoshuaZ
 | JoshuaZ is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
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.
Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002 Talk Archive003 Talk Archive004 Talk Archive005 Talk Archive006 Talk Archive007 Next archiving will occur around August 25
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)
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. Sbowers3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Eseymour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) main activity is removing negative material and adding positive material to the article. Most recently they have even removed comments made by the subject.[1]
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. •Jim62sch• 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 Wikipedia: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)
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#Note_More_wild_accusations_from_User:Radiant.21. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: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!
 |
JoshuaZ has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian Love, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
- 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, Phaedriel - 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)
- 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, Phaedriel - 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- How nice! Puppy approves - so sorry I'm late to the Happy Day. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 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, >Radiant< 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: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. -- Y not? 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. 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 - Starblind 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 - Starblind 15:42, 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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, 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 Wikipedia: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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm not sure, but it strikes me that your block of PR is punitive, not preventative; can you convince me otherwise? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 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)
- new AN/I here - [2]. please participate. JaakobouChalk 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's 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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: Wikipedia: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
ReinaB (talk · contribs) 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. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk_page_blanking. 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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Overlawyered. 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:
- POV fork from Single payer health care
- author chose to create this article rather than resolve naming /content disputes
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
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 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary_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, <KF> 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., {{template:somebody-please-provide-rationale-per-NFCC#10(c)-within-30-days}} 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, Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Invitation
| You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us! |
Cyrusc 15:53, 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)
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'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#Problem_with_wording ... Kenosis 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#iantresman indefinite ban appeal. Newyorkbrad 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
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)
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: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi 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)
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. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 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. -- tariqabjotu 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. -- tariqabjotu 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, congratulations to you! •Jim62sch• 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. – ornis⚙ 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. – ornis⚙ 22:58, 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. 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. -- tariqabjotu 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). -- tariqabjotu 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia: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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Might be an idea to salt the above article - it's been deleted 4 or 5 times before. Chase me ladies, I'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 Busdriver101 (talk · contribs) and Busdriver1001 (talk · contribs), and 82.16.59.89 (talk · contribs) are all editing it too. They're all the same person, quite probably! Chase me ladies, I'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)
- And perhaps Stephen Ector too. I'll keep an eye on the IP and any accounts that'll edit it, but Busdriver101 (talk · contribs) and Busdriver1001 (talk · contribs), and 82.16.59.89 (talk · contribs) are all editing it too. They're all the same person, quite probably! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:14, 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
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind.
|
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, [[3]] #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)
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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia: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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests but would like you to take a look at it. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to intrude, but this is being addressed at WP:ANI#I feel harrassed. IrishGuy 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. ffm 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please block an account
Greetings JoshuaZ, I've just visited a vandal user page [4] 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 [5] per checkuser. Would you mind reviewing Wikipedia: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.[6] 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)
-
- Actually, that is a newly discovered sock! I posted an update at Wikipedia: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