So this is my question to the 5 people (including me) who have been in this argument. I wont repose the articles. Howevery if you 5 give me a vote (mine is yes) on this question and we get majority yes, i will go on with this interesting effort: i am going to prepare int eh sand box a few articles on the other visions of time, the philosophical vision who deals with past, present and future, the 3 temporal verbs, and the biological vision who deals with feedbacks, multiple cycles and the arrows of informative evolution and derviates. I will quote and search for that before putting them, i will use many authors not only the works of my father (who writes mainly in basque hence doesnt appear a lot in google only his trnaslations to spanish but you can google luis sancho soto and?or 'los ciclos del tiempo', but mainly biologists, eastern philosophers and system scientists. And the question is, since it is going to be a big effort: are you going to give a chance to those articles or just bring the dogmatic vision of physicists that 'time is what a clock measures' (einstein) as oppossed to philosophers: 'time is all forms of change'Aristotle, and biologists with his arrow of information and life? Please do respond me to my talk, i have spent the entire week end on those articles and they were just erased in seconds. And that is not fair. I ask you to forget any argument or cultural bashing i had done, (apologize for that) and put an objective pov on this and give me a vote. if i get 3 nos i am out of here, if i get 3 yes, i will work hard in proper spelling, etc.
Ok Joanne, i will go along and write properl researhed, it seems the only hardcore censor hiere is mr. connolley. He is the only one who truly thinks he knows everything and just realized the one who erased me blocked me and didnt give me time to do my job. The rest of you seem to be pretty fair so iill go ahead when i have some time free and do the right thing. Respect to original research this is not. As all is published and I am not the author. This is for the record the ongoing argumetn with connoley and the reasons why i got angry and wrote stupid remarks, sorry about that... I do strongly disagree though with Mr. connolley way of dismissing work he ignores and puts aside with words like junk, garbage, etc. That is not the way to deal with newCOMERS. So he writes: connolley You need to read up on the the "original reseach" WP:OR and no-autobiography policies (within which a biog of your father would probably be discouraged). At the least, you need to make your relation to the subject clear by a note on the talk page. Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe is either wrong, garbled or meaningless - probably the latter. I certainly don't know what you mean by it. Wiki isn't here for you to expond your personal theories William M. Connolley 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) and i answer alvatros> Ok, i just dont believe you have not heard of circadian cycles, non linear dynamics, the different speeds of times affected by relativity, the arrow of information (or biological arrow of time), system sciences, the relativism of clock-time as a measure of translational change (Aristotle's metaphysics) and how the pioneers Galileo and Descartes ('the world'), defined physical time as only one of the aspects of Time-Change. I want to expand those concepts of time. Respect to my father's work he is considered in my country (the basque country) and increasingly spain where his books were translated (google luis sancho soto, ciclos del tiempo), a classic of time philosophy. All the quotes that will be introduced here will be from his published books and University papers, since the 80s, when quantic space-time was an oddity. His work however is complementary to the one of Smolin and others in as much as quantum gravity concentrates in quantic space and the work i will bring here concentrates in quantic time, i imagine you have a strong physics background but not a strong biological, systemic and philosophical background and so i think you should not mae the knd of heavy statements you keep doing on the work of those other scientists, like junk, garbled, wrong or meaningless but stick to your matter and let censor whatever i write here with proper fonts by biologists and philosophers. And again, certainly whatever relationship i have with luis sancho, a leading time philosopher from the latin culture that has given to mankind some of the best writers on that field from greece, italy, france and spain, fro aristotle to bergson from galileo to the existentialist movement deserves respect. The fact that basque is a 200000 people language and there is a very limited translation of foreign books in the english speakign millieu doesnt make those fonts unreliable, i have read all the policies and writing about a university scholar, with reputation and 30 years of books and publishing is deserved. But my aim is to bring back the entire philosophical and biological tradition on time, which is far more compelx than the reduccionist aproach of physics, which is only a form of time-change, translational time change. Ok? I simply think work on biology and philosophy should not be deleted by a physicist so my question here is, when i put them there how can i expect those articles to be reviwed not by physicist. Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley"
I have reviewed the history of edits for user:Pm_shef . Is it just me that now thinks that Pm_shef is running a sockpuppet farm? It appears that user:Vaughanwatch could in fact be a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. Look through all the edits of Pm_shef, the articles edits, the day of the edits, the time the edits take place. The question is why would he be doing this trying to frame the governement group and its president? Then you look at the who Pm_shef is (son of a councillor) and I think answers my question.-- 67.71.86.57 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
for the unblock. Rock on! -- ragesoss 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that you have now moved the article to Union Flag. As the closing Admin, could you please do that nice green box around the vote, to show that it is closed, giving it the standard header with your closing comment. That way, it is clear to newcomers that that is an archived vote. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw what you just did to your monobook, hmm, will have to make myself extra special busy tonight :p -- Alf melmac 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Its ok everything i have written is deleted including my father's autobiography, this is america these days, it seems unavoidable that mixture of arrogance and ignorance... of course in the mean time i was blocked not to be able to respnd by mr. Connolley who called 'junk'all those articles so i called him Mr. Junk sorry about that.
But the matter is time and the different views of pysicists and biologists. To delete everything and maintain the point of view of physics about time which so deeply difers from the point of view of biology and philosophy and eastern cultures as the dogmatic truth is the goal of all that bunch of people. Deja vu. It is called censorship. You should just help me to edit in better english the ideas about time i bring here from those other traditions... I planned to work 'discontnuously'this week, from classic sources including the work of that Luis Sancho (google luis sancho soto and the books on his deleted biography to get hits, these themes are on 'Ciclos del tiempo'). , Other errors come from the fact i am learning to edit. But the matter here is time. Do physicists have the absolute right to know truth? Why? Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe, ahve we to stick to Mr. Galileo definition? Why? Are science a religion with a single point of view? Why? It will take me a time to find the exact quotes of Boltzmann, Sancho, Einstein, Lao Tse, etc. as i am in holidays, ok? Just be patient.
the title of the article Lowell Catholic High School was spelled incorrectly. (caholic) I made a new one can you get rid of the old one
thanks
Thanks for thanking out the Personal Attack on my user page! Aerographer Wind Sock 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoanneB,
It's YourCousin, not your cousin.
I wanted to write you one more time and definitely apologise for being heavy handed and whatever I was earlier. It was unnecessary. I'm very sorry. You were polite and cordial all the way.
I never said that you were not intelligent. I could see that you clearly were/are.
All of this mess came from me wanting the guy to source his quote. He attempted to flatten me.... That was his response.
I simply could not allow some 18 year old and his admin gang-members to flatten me.... not completely anyway. So I usd the sockpuppets and a score and 11/20 ISPs. You can call it "the wrong way".. I think it's funny... and you were right, the guy is losing his RFA 42/22/5... I get 59%... you?
As an admin person, if you take your position seriously, I want you to know that I'm not intending to do this forever... I'm not gonna become a vigilante... ha! Like Charled Bronson: "DEATH WIKISH"... ohh never mind... you could be 20 and have no idea what I just said...
Anyway! I'm truly sorry to have been abrupt with you. You are more "not so thorough" than incompetent or inept. I retract my negative remark. I was agitated already then when you reprimanded me (me feeling like a victim already) I snapped...
You were truly the ONLY person that has EVER contacted me on Wikipedia with or without me having a sockpuppet, that was totally polite, cordial and didn't TOTALLY BLANK me.
Thanks...
You are good admin...(I think)
When I can figure out how to hand out awards with my proper ID, i will send some your way.
Have a lovely rest of the weekend.
YourCousin-- 194.164.208.177 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the Rossing article. I wanted to let you know that I expanded it a bit. Regards, TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Joanne, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My
Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to
come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
And so we meet again, dear Joanne, and in much more pleasant circumstances, fortunately :) Yet, my opinion of you has not changed in the least; I continue to look up to you like the first day, and being supported by a person I sincerely admire meant the world to me. You are by far one of our best, J, and I hope our paths cross again as often as possible. Please take good care, and I hope to talk to you again real soon! :) With a big hug, your friend,
JoanneB,
I was astonished when I read the definition for Symantec AntiVirus today. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to be a neutral source of factual data. The entire criticism section just blew me away. I was even more surprised that instead of simply deleting the bad content that the proposed solution was to arbitrate a new NPROs section where somebody could write content that was pro to Symantec AV to "balance" the critisms section? I thought that your role as a Patroller was to enforce neutrality with an eye on factual content. Is the goal of Wikipedia to encourage all software manufacturers and their advocates to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to mud-sling and blast competitors with misinformation that would otherwise have them sued for libel in any other print media? That would make at least the software section of Wikipedia very useless.
Mark Lawler Chief Technical Officer, ProSight, Inc.
Thanks for your feedback at request for feedback about the article Scarborough, Ontario WilyD 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I just made Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joy_Bang already. No need for it now. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
— freak( talk) 17:52, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)
It happened because I hit the back button on Firefox to go back to something else! Sorry about that! -- TheM62Manchester 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to stop doing that on FireFox! -- TheM62Manchester 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just saying thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page :-) — Mets501 ( talk) 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I tend to award these, whenever someone consistently beats me to the rollback. Excluding bots of course. :D KOS |
Please elaborate on the "vandalism" I committed. A "last warning" is pretty serious and if it's just randomly being thrown around...I don't know what Wikipedia's coming to. Soa P 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
My admin coaching notes say that you wanted to delay being assigned a new trainee until July. Well July has gone, so I wanted to check if you are now ready to help coach someone? Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Petros471 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoy your Wiki-Birthday! Thisthema n 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Michael 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the number of messages from other users, including warnings, why did you delete User talk:Nathanrdotcom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Daniel's page ☎ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Daniel's page ☎ 04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Joanne. I'm Daniel5127. My purpose here is to ask the way of making my own monobook, and popups. Right now, I still hardly try to make my own monobook because it would be benefits for reverting vandalism, personal attacks, and obscenities.... Because most of Wikipedians use their own Popups to revert vandals on article immediately. Anyways, Could you please explain to me how to make my monobook, and getting popups in my talk page? Cheers! Daniel's page ☎ 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats alright JoanneB, nothing compares to someone's happiness :D Take care -- Imo eng 10:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for using the word URGENT. I used it because he was blanking repeatedly (4 times in a minute). - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've received through e-mail my new password. Could you please unblock my deadly-jeopernized account? Thanks in advance! HRE 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not mistaken. The user, the admin is User:FireFox, and he has deleted his own pages.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I came here to make a suggestion about something else and stumbled across User:Will Beback's request to restore User:Nathanrdotcom's talk page.
I have a question about the indefinite blocking of User:Nathanrdotcom. I am asking more from a desire to understand policy than a specific desire to unblock this user. Someday, I may put in an RfA and I would like to understand the nuances of blocking a little bit better.
(NB: I remember Nathanrdotcom as one of the participants in a contentious dispute immediately before Esperanza blew up earlier this year.)
Other than one violation of WP:3RR, NathanRdotcom does not seem to have done anything particularly egregious. User:Sceptre blocked Nathanrdotcomfor "a particularly spiteful e-mail". Now, incivility in spiteful e-mails is not a good thing but it doesn't harm Wikipedia in the way that violations of WP:3RR or incivility on Talk Pages does. Should it be the basis for an indefinite block?
-- Richard 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the real reason I stopped by. I've noticed that you edit (revert vandalism) on articles related to the Catholic Church. There is an RFC over a dispute about the "Roman Catholicism" section of the Salvation article. Since you are a fellow Esperanzian and an admin, I'm interested to know what your opinion is of what I wrote in response. -- Richard 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"bot" was changed to the curse word that would typically be used against somebody of your gender. The user was repeatedly slandering the mini-entry for Blooregard Q. Kazoo too, so I'm not going to show any mercy at all about whether or not to report him. -- Juigi Kario ( Charge! * My crusades) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if what you're doing fits WP:GUS: you're moving all these userboxes to project space, rather than user space. Am I just seeing this wrong? If not, could you please change your edit summary, or move them to user space? Thanks! -- Joanne B 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you for the work you did closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easties (people). The other article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) has also been listed for deletion. It would be hoped that for the sake of uniformity that you would also close this discussion. Failing that I would be pleased if you would comment in this discussion. The articles are equivalent and could be said to be opposing articles. I have been editing Westies for several months and the problem is the large amount of unverified contributions to attracts. It is a magnet for people who wish to vilify others based solely on where they live. Thanks. -- WikiCats 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you your work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people). Your decision was keep. Could you please explain the reason for your decision? -- WikiCats 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joanne. Thank you for your explanation. People from Sydney’s east began referring to people from the Greater West as “westies”. In retaliation they started calling those from the Eastern suburbs “easties”. The Easties and Westies articles were created within a month of one each other. Both are essentially derogeratory and representative of the social battle that exists in Sydney. They are opposing points of view in a class war.
The guidelines say that we must present all points of view. They describe how to deal with class bias issues here: “Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.”
We have a situation where the Wikipedia describes social vilification towards people from one area but blocks the response to that vilification. This is a serious matter.
However you may justify it, you have deleted one point of view whilst keeping the other. How do you propose to correct your error? -- WikiCats 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains, one point of view has been deleted from the encyclopedia. It's not up to me to fix your mistakes. -- WikiCats 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal that Neutral point of view can be avoided by other guidelines is ludicrous. We have a situation where an opposing point of view in the Sydney class battle has been deleted. I am from Sydney and I can tell you that I am personally outraged that this condition exists in the Wikiopedia. If you felt that Easties was not sustainable then you needed to delete Westies to maintain NPOV. An examination of the AfDs reveals that I fought hard against this situation occurring. It’s either both points of view or neither. You can not walk away from the situation that you created. It is an admins. role to protect the integrity of Wikipedia not put it at risk. I again stress that it is not my duty to sort out this mess. -- WikiCats 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I put an oar in here? I've been tracking this discussion via my watchlist. I think that this discussion has gotten stuck in a "I'm right / No you're not" rut. Unfortunately, I'm late to a party that I'm hosting so I don't have time to really look at this at the level of detail that it deserves.
My quick analysis is that there SHOULD be an article called Easties (people) but I don't have the time to look at the old article and fully understand why it was deleted. It seems that some of the sources for the Westies (people) article also mention the Eastie stereotype so it seems that a sourced article could be written about Easties.
Can I ask both of you to give it a rest (go to the Esperanza cafe and get a cup of chai or Taize or whatever) and then let's look at it from a "how do we write an acceptable article about Easties" perspective. I will try to look at it within the next couple of days. (full weekend with the family takes priority over Wikipedia; sorry).
I've seen WikiCats around and I know he's a respectable editor. I also have a lot of respect for JoanneB. So, IMO, this is just a disagreement between two respected Wikipedians. No trolls anywhere in sight. We just need to get off the emotions and principles shtick and focus on how to improve Wikipedia.
-- Richard 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This debate has been moved to
User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --
WikiCats
08:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for deletion of your comment on The J Curve, I wasn't aware of the convention. I edited the article on the basis of a number of other listings of comparable works on international politics (Friedman and the like); the page now looks fine to me. Please remove your deletion request if you agree. Thank you. 19 August 2006
Understood. Please do not remove the Fromkin citation; the professor has discussed the issue piece of trivia at public fora (including a recent Futures Conference at Boston University). 67.86.120.150 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Joanne- I'm not necessarily questioning your decision, but can you explain your decision to keep quite so speedily for Cynna Kydd in more detail? Because it isn't clear to me that this nom fulfills any of the speedy keep criteria... Badgerpatrol 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to applaud JoanneB's actions here, and suggest to Badgerpatrol that he many not really understand how things work round these parts. We don't rigorously abide by process. It's in an administrator's discretion to do what's right, like closing an obviously shit nomination of a featured front page article. Expanding the "speedy keep" criteria or what not is the wrong "solution" ... adding a bunch more laws and policies just leaves more room for people to search for various loopholes and exploit them. One of our only real "laws" is "do what's right" ... and JoanneB did that in this situation without worrying about suffocating bureaucracy. So please don't give her any grief over it. -- Cyde Weys 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Support JoanneB's decision. Very WP:ROUGE of you, well done. I just can't imagine a set of circumstances (and I'm a BIG process wonk, ask anyone) in which noming this for AfD while it's an FA and on the main page is in any way shape or form a good idea, and to do so seems to suggest a not very good understanding of how things are are around here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar ( talk • contribs) .
Sorry Badgerpatrol, I didn't mean to give the appearance of you being incivil or anything. It's just that having our main page featured article up for deletion makes use look stupid, and we don't want to look stupid. AFDs on main page featured articles have been routinely closed before. Please wait until it's off the main page for trying to bring it up for a deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
... for removing the vandalism from my user page on 31 Jul - hv been inactive for the last one month. Hv a good day!! -- Gurubrahma 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A source? The common sense. The fans all around the world. What means classic for u? And what's POV? Thanks Machocarioca 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca
Well, I tought the common sense was enough. Many books and articles see Louis as the classic Monneypenny. I´ll find some. Machocariocamachocarioca
Hi Joanne. Parochialism in Sydney is the latest effort to address the POV problem when Easties was deleted. It was discussed here: Talk:Westies_(people)#Layout. Editors are again trying to prevent a solution to this NPOV issue. Your opinion on this issue is valued. Do you think Parochialism in Sydney is a viable article? -- WikiCats 04:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Beste JoanneB, Aanstaande zaterdag is het zover, dan vind de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland plaats waar je je voor hebt opgegeven! Bij je inschrijving gaf je aan dat je nog niet helemaal zeker was dat je kunt komen. Kun je het zeggen als je meer weet? Hartelijk dank! We hopen je graag te mogen begroeten in Utrecht. Kijk op deze pagina voor informatie hoe je er kunt komen. Tot 31 augustus kun je nog vooruitbetalen voor zover je dat nog niet hebt gedaan, je krijgt dan €2,50 korting op de toegangsprijs. Er zijn nog plaatsen vrij, dus als je andere enthousiastelingen mee wilt nemen, zijn die van harte welkom. Wel graag inschrijven op de inschrijvingspagina.
Je kunt je ook inschrijven voor het wokken na de conferentie. Schrijf je svp zo snel mogelijk in, dan kunnen we plaatsen reserveren. De extra kosten bedragen €17,50 excl. drankjes.
Ik hoop dat jullie een geweldige conferentie zullen hebben komende 2 september, en dat er ook veel mensen mee gaan uit eten.
Met vriendelijke groet, effeiets anders 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to restore the paragraph too, but I think my script failed me somewhat. I've contacted the user to consider rewriting the paragraph rather then outright removing it; you may wish to join the discussion here. Thanks :) — Xyra e l / 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Commons:User:JoanneB made an slightly unusual request to Commons:User:Pfctdayelise's talk page earlier today. [3] This then got raised at the Commons Village Pump. Could you reply to me on en.wikipedia to confirm if this user is you or not. Thanks.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but i thought it had to be a wrong version of Donald. Anyways, i understand. Strange name. The 89 guy 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Constant Vandalism
the IP address 194.223.93.252,registered to Government schools; Maidenhead; GB,is performing constant vandalism,including one such act less then 10 minutes ago Pikajedi3
|
|
|
See this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JoanneB. Should this be copied to BJAODN? Jesse Viviano 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone at Admin coaching. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Thank you for helping with admin coaching! H ig hway Grammar Enforcer! 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems IP 69.217.73.2 starts its vandalism works again [4]. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ (Ŧ) 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
Hey! Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the election result? — Cel es tianpower háblame 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what went on with this person. The contributions show they made several edits to Harry Potter articles then went on to edit your user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a very merry and happy Christmas, if the relatives' cooking isn't up to scratch set the budgie on them :D - hoping for a peaceful and brave new year! -- Alf melmac 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
So this is my question to the 5 people (including me) who have been in this argument. I wont repose the articles. Howevery if you 5 give me a vote (mine is yes) on this question and we get majority yes, i will go on with this interesting effort: i am going to prepare int eh sand box a few articles on the other visions of time, the philosophical vision who deals with past, present and future, the 3 temporal verbs, and the biological vision who deals with feedbacks, multiple cycles and the arrows of informative evolution and derviates. I will quote and search for that before putting them, i will use many authors not only the works of my father (who writes mainly in basque hence doesnt appear a lot in google only his trnaslations to spanish but you can google luis sancho soto and?or 'los ciclos del tiempo', but mainly biologists, eastern philosophers and system scientists. And the question is, since it is going to be a big effort: are you going to give a chance to those articles or just bring the dogmatic vision of physicists that 'time is what a clock measures' (einstein) as oppossed to philosophers: 'time is all forms of change'Aristotle, and biologists with his arrow of information and life? Please do respond me to my talk, i have spent the entire week end on those articles and they were just erased in seconds. And that is not fair. I ask you to forget any argument or cultural bashing i had done, (apologize for that) and put an objective pov on this and give me a vote. if i get 3 nos i am out of here, if i get 3 yes, i will work hard in proper spelling, etc.
Ok Joanne, i will go along and write properl researhed, it seems the only hardcore censor hiere is mr. connolley. He is the only one who truly thinks he knows everything and just realized the one who erased me blocked me and didnt give me time to do my job. The rest of you seem to be pretty fair so iill go ahead when i have some time free and do the right thing. Respect to original research this is not. As all is published and I am not the author. This is for the record the ongoing argumetn with connoley and the reasons why i got angry and wrote stupid remarks, sorry about that... I do strongly disagree though with Mr. connolley way of dismissing work he ignores and puts aside with words like junk, garbage, etc. That is not the way to deal with newCOMERS. So he writes: connolley You need to read up on the the "original reseach" WP:OR and no-autobiography policies (within which a biog of your father would probably be discouraged). At the least, you need to make your relation to the subject clear by a note on the talk page. Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe is either wrong, garbled or meaningless - probably the latter. I certainly don't know what you mean by it. Wiki isn't here for you to expond your personal theories William M. Connolley 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) and i answer alvatros> Ok, i just dont believe you have not heard of circadian cycles, non linear dynamics, the different speeds of times affected by relativity, the arrow of information (or biological arrow of time), system sciences, the relativism of clock-time as a measure of translational change (Aristotle's metaphysics) and how the pioneers Galileo and Descartes ('the world'), defined physical time as only one of the aspects of Time-Change. I want to expand those concepts of time. Respect to my father's work he is considered in my country (the basque country) and increasingly spain where his books were translated (google luis sancho soto, ciclos del tiempo), a classic of time philosophy. All the quotes that will be introduced here will be from his published books and University papers, since the 80s, when quantic space-time was an oddity. His work however is complementary to the one of Smolin and others in as much as quantum gravity concentrates in quantic space and the work i will bring here concentrates in quantic time, i imagine you have a strong physics background but not a strong biological, systemic and philosophical background and so i think you should not mae the knd of heavy statements you keep doing on the work of those other scientists, like junk, garbled, wrong or meaningless but stick to your matter and let censor whatever i write here with proper fonts by biologists and philosophers. And again, certainly whatever relationship i have with luis sancho, a leading time philosopher from the latin culture that has given to mankind some of the best writers on that field from greece, italy, france and spain, fro aristotle to bergson from galileo to the existentialist movement deserves respect. The fact that basque is a 200000 people language and there is a very limited translation of foreign books in the english speakign millieu doesnt make those fonts unreliable, i have read all the policies and writing about a university scholar, with reputation and 30 years of books and publishing is deserved. But my aim is to bring back the entire philosophical and biological tradition on time, which is far more compelx than the reduccionist aproach of physics, which is only a form of time-change, translational time change. Ok? I simply think work on biology and philosophy should not be deleted by a physicist so my question here is, when i put them there how can i expect those articles to be reviwed not by physicist. Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley"
I have reviewed the history of edits for user:Pm_shef . Is it just me that now thinks that Pm_shef is running a sockpuppet farm? It appears that user:Vaughanwatch could in fact be a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. Look through all the edits of Pm_shef, the articles edits, the day of the edits, the time the edits take place. The question is why would he be doing this trying to frame the governement group and its president? Then you look at the who Pm_shef is (son of a councillor) and I think answers my question.-- 67.71.86.57 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
for the unblock. Rock on! -- ragesoss 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that you have now moved the article to Union Flag. As the closing Admin, could you please do that nice green box around the vote, to show that it is closed, giving it the standard header with your closing comment. That way, it is clear to newcomers that that is an archived vote. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw what you just did to your monobook, hmm, will have to make myself extra special busy tonight :p -- Alf melmac 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Its ok everything i have written is deleted including my father's autobiography, this is america these days, it seems unavoidable that mixture of arrogance and ignorance... of course in the mean time i was blocked not to be able to respnd by mr. Connolley who called 'junk'all those articles so i called him Mr. Junk sorry about that.
But the matter is time and the different views of pysicists and biologists. To delete everything and maintain the point of view of physics about time which so deeply difers from the point of view of biology and philosophy and eastern cultures as the dogmatic truth is the goal of all that bunch of people. Deja vu. It is called censorship. You should just help me to edit in better english the ideas about time i bring here from those other traditions... I planned to work 'discontnuously'this week, from classic sources including the work of that Luis Sancho (google luis sancho soto and the books on his deleted biography to get hits, these themes are on 'Ciclos del tiempo'). , Other errors come from the fact i am learning to edit. But the matter here is time. Do physicists have the absolute right to know truth? Why? Every biologist know there are infinite clocks int eh Universe, ahve we to stick to Mr. Galileo definition? Why? Are science a religion with a single point of view? Why? It will take me a time to find the exact quotes of Boltzmann, Sancho, Einstein, Lao Tse, etc. as i am in holidays, ok? Just be patient.
the title of the article Lowell Catholic High School was spelled incorrectly. (caholic) I made a new one can you get rid of the old one
thanks
Thanks for thanking out the Personal Attack on my user page! Aerographer Wind Sock 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoanneB,
It's YourCousin, not your cousin.
I wanted to write you one more time and definitely apologise for being heavy handed and whatever I was earlier. It was unnecessary. I'm very sorry. You were polite and cordial all the way.
I never said that you were not intelligent. I could see that you clearly were/are.
All of this mess came from me wanting the guy to source his quote. He attempted to flatten me.... That was his response.
I simply could not allow some 18 year old and his admin gang-members to flatten me.... not completely anyway. So I usd the sockpuppets and a score and 11/20 ISPs. You can call it "the wrong way".. I think it's funny... and you were right, the guy is losing his RFA 42/22/5... I get 59%... you?
As an admin person, if you take your position seriously, I want you to know that I'm not intending to do this forever... I'm not gonna become a vigilante... ha! Like Charled Bronson: "DEATH WIKISH"... ohh never mind... you could be 20 and have no idea what I just said...
Anyway! I'm truly sorry to have been abrupt with you. You are more "not so thorough" than incompetent or inept. I retract my negative remark. I was agitated already then when you reprimanded me (me feeling like a victim already) I snapped...
You were truly the ONLY person that has EVER contacted me on Wikipedia with or without me having a sockpuppet, that was totally polite, cordial and didn't TOTALLY BLANK me.
Thanks...
You are good admin...(I think)
When I can figure out how to hand out awards with my proper ID, i will send some your way.
Have a lovely rest of the weekend.
YourCousin-- 194.164.208.177 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the Rossing article. I wanted to let you know that I expanded it a bit. Regards, TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Joanne, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My
Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to
come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
And so we meet again, dear Joanne, and in much more pleasant circumstances, fortunately :) Yet, my opinion of you has not changed in the least; I continue to look up to you like the first day, and being supported by a person I sincerely admire meant the world to me. You are by far one of our best, J, and I hope our paths cross again as often as possible. Please take good care, and I hope to talk to you again real soon! :) With a big hug, your friend,
JoanneB,
I was astonished when I read the definition for Symantec AntiVirus today. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to be a neutral source of factual data. The entire criticism section just blew me away. I was even more surprised that instead of simply deleting the bad content that the proposed solution was to arbitrate a new NPROs section where somebody could write content that was pro to Symantec AV to "balance" the critisms section? I thought that your role as a Patroller was to enforce neutrality with an eye on factual content. Is the goal of Wikipedia to encourage all software manufacturers and their advocates to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to mud-sling and blast competitors with misinformation that would otherwise have them sued for libel in any other print media? That would make at least the software section of Wikipedia very useless.
Mark Lawler Chief Technical Officer, ProSight, Inc.
Thanks for your feedback at request for feedback about the article Scarborough, Ontario WilyD 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I just made Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joy_Bang already. No need for it now. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
— freak( talk) 17:52, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)
It happened because I hit the back button on Firefox to go back to something else! Sorry about that! -- TheM62Manchester 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to stop doing that on FireFox! -- TheM62Manchester 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just saying thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page :-) — Mets501 ( talk) 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I tend to award these, whenever someone consistently beats me to the rollback. Excluding bots of course. :D KOS |
Please elaborate on the "vandalism" I committed. A "last warning" is pretty serious and if it's just randomly being thrown around...I don't know what Wikipedia's coming to. Soa P 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
My admin coaching notes say that you wanted to delay being assigned a new trainee until July. Well July has gone, so I wanted to check if you are now ready to help coach someone? Please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Petros471 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoy your Wiki-Birthday! Thisthema n 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Michael 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the number of messages from other users, including warnings, why did you delete User talk:Nathanrdotcom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback ( talk • contribs)
Daniel's page ☎ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Daniel's page ☎ 04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Joanne. I'm Daniel5127. My purpose here is to ask the way of making my own monobook, and popups. Right now, I still hardly try to make my own monobook because it would be benefits for reverting vandalism, personal attacks, and obscenities.... Because most of Wikipedians use their own Popups to revert vandals on article immediately. Anyways, Could you please explain to me how to make my monobook, and getting popups in my talk page? Cheers! Daniel's page ☎ 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats alright JoanneB, nothing compares to someone's happiness :D Take care -- Imo eng 10:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for using the word URGENT. I used it because he was blanking repeatedly (4 times in a minute). - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've received through e-mail my new password. Could you please unblock my deadly-jeopernized account? Thanks in advance! HRE 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not mistaken. The user, the admin is User:FireFox, and he has deleted his own pages.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I came here to make a suggestion about something else and stumbled across User:Will Beback's request to restore User:Nathanrdotcom's talk page.
I have a question about the indefinite blocking of User:Nathanrdotcom. I am asking more from a desire to understand policy than a specific desire to unblock this user. Someday, I may put in an RfA and I would like to understand the nuances of blocking a little bit better.
(NB: I remember Nathanrdotcom as one of the participants in a contentious dispute immediately before Esperanza blew up earlier this year.)
Other than one violation of WP:3RR, NathanRdotcom does not seem to have done anything particularly egregious. User:Sceptre blocked Nathanrdotcomfor "a particularly spiteful e-mail". Now, incivility in spiteful e-mails is not a good thing but it doesn't harm Wikipedia in the way that violations of WP:3RR or incivility on Talk Pages does. Should it be the basis for an indefinite block?
-- Richard 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the real reason I stopped by. I've noticed that you edit (revert vandalism) on articles related to the Catholic Church. There is an RFC over a dispute about the "Roman Catholicism" section of the Salvation article. Since you are a fellow Esperanzian and an admin, I'm interested to know what your opinion is of what I wrote in response. -- Richard 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"bot" was changed to the curse word that would typically be used against somebody of your gender. The user was repeatedly slandering the mini-entry for Blooregard Q. Kazoo too, so I'm not going to show any mercy at all about whether or not to report him. -- Juigi Kario ( Charge! * My crusades) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if what you're doing fits WP:GUS: you're moving all these userboxes to project space, rather than user space. Am I just seeing this wrong? If not, could you please change your edit summary, or move them to user space? Thanks! -- Joanne B 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you for the work you did closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easties (people). The other article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) has also been listed for deletion. It would be hoped that for the sake of uniformity that you would also close this discussion. Failing that I would be pleased if you would comment in this discussion. The articles are equivalent and could be said to be opposing articles. I have been editing Westies for several months and the problem is the large amount of unverified contributions to attracts. It is a magnet for people who wish to vilify others based solely on where they live. Thanks. -- WikiCats 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you your work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people). Your decision was keep. Could you please explain the reason for your decision? -- WikiCats 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joanne. Thank you for your explanation. People from Sydney’s east began referring to people from the Greater West as “westies”. In retaliation they started calling those from the Eastern suburbs “easties”. The Easties and Westies articles were created within a month of one each other. Both are essentially derogeratory and representative of the social battle that exists in Sydney. They are opposing points of view in a class war.
The guidelines say that we must present all points of view. They describe how to deal with class bias issues here: “Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.”
We have a situation where the Wikipedia describes social vilification towards people from one area but blocks the response to that vilification. This is a serious matter.
However you may justify it, you have deleted one point of view whilst keeping the other. How do you propose to correct your error? -- WikiCats 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains, one point of view has been deleted from the encyclopedia. It's not up to me to fix your mistakes. -- WikiCats 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal that Neutral point of view can be avoided by other guidelines is ludicrous. We have a situation where an opposing point of view in the Sydney class battle has been deleted. I am from Sydney and I can tell you that I am personally outraged that this condition exists in the Wikiopedia. If you felt that Easties was not sustainable then you needed to delete Westies to maintain NPOV. An examination of the AfDs reveals that I fought hard against this situation occurring. It’s either both points of view or neither. You can not walk away from the situation that you created. It is an admins. role to protect the integrity of Wikipedia not put it at risk. I again stress that it is not my duty to sort out this mess. -- WikiCats 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I put an oar in here? I've been tracking this discussion via my watchlist. I think that this discussion has gotten stuck in a "I'm right / No you're not" rut. Unfortunately, I'm late to a party that I'm hosting so I don't have time to really look at this at the level of detail that it deserves.
My quick analysis is that there SHOULD be an article called Easties (people) but I don't have the time to look at the old article and fully understand why it was deleted. It seems that some of the sources for the Westies (people) article also mention the Eastie stereotype so it seems that a sourced article could be written about Easties.
Can I ask both of you to give it a rest (go to the Esperanza cafe and get a cup of chai or Taize or whatever) and then let's look at it from a "how do we write an acceptable article about Easties" perspective. I will try to look at it within the next couple of days. (full weekend with the family takes priority over Wikipedia; sorry).
I've seen WikiCats around and I know he's a respectable editor. I also have a lot of respect for JoanneB. So, IMO, this is just a disagreement between two respected Wikipedians. No trolls anywhere in sight. We just need to get off the emotions and principles shtick and focus on how to improve Wikipedia.
-- Richard 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This debate has been moved to
User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --
WikiCats
08:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for deletion of your comment on The J Curve, I wasn't aware of the convention. I edited the article on the basis of a number of other listings of comparable works on international politics (Friedman and the like); the page now looks fine to me. Please remove your deletion request if you agree. Thank you. 19 August 2006
Understood. Please do not remove the Fromkin citation; the professor has discussed the issue piece of trivia at public fora (including a recent Futures Conference at Boston University). 67.86.120.150 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Joanne- I'm not necessarily questioning your decision, but can you explain your decision to keep quite so speedily for Cynna Kydd in more detail? Because it isn't clear to me that this nom fulfills any of the speedy keep criteria... Badgerpatrol 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to applaud JoanneB's actions here, and suggest to Badgerpatrol that he many not really understand how things work round these parts. We don't rigorously abide by process. It's in an administrator's discretion to do what's right, like closing an obviously shit nomination of a featured front page article. Expanding the "speedy keep" criteria or what not is the wrong "solution" ... adding a bunch more laws and policies just leaves more room for people to search for various loopholes and exploit them. One of our only real "laws" is "do what's right" ... and JoanneB did that in this situation without worrying about suffocating bureaucracy. So please don't give her any grief over it. -- Cyde Weys 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Support JoanneB's decision. Very WP:ROUGE of you, well done. I just can't imagine a set of circumstances (and I'm a BIG process wonk, ask anyone) in which noming this for AfD while it's an FA and on the main page is in any way shape or form a good idea, and to do so seems to suggest a not very good understanding of how things are are around here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar ( talk • contribs) .
Sorry Badgerpatrol, I didn't mean to give the appearance of you being incivil or anything. It's just that having our main page featured article up for deletion makes use look stupid, and we don't want to look stupid. AFDs on main page featured articles have been routinely closed before. Please wait until it's off the main page for trying to bring it up for a deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
... for removing the vandalism from my user page on 31 Jul - hv been inactive for the last one month. Hv a good day!! -- Gurubrahma 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A source? The common sense. The fans all around the world. What means classic for u? And what's POV? Thanks Machocarioca 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)machocarioca
Well, I tought the common sense was enough. Many books and articles see Louis as the classic Monneypenny. I´ll find some. Machocariocamachocarioca
Hi Joanne. Parochialism in Sydney is the latest effort to address the POV problem when Easties was deleted. It was discussed here: Talk:Westies_(people)#Layout. Editors are again trying to prevent a solution to this NPOV issue. Your opinion on this issue is valued. Do you think Parochialism in Sydney is a viable article? -- WikiCats 04:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Beste JoanneB, Aanstaande zaterdag is het zover, dan vind de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland plaats waar je je voor hebt opgegeven! Bij je inschrijving gaf je aan dat je nog niet helemaal zeker was dat je kunt komen. Kun je het zeggen als je meer weet? Hartelijk dank! We hopen je graag te mogen begroeten in Utrecht. Kijk op deze pagina voor informatie hoe je er kunt komen. Tot 31 augustus kun je nog vooruitbetalen voor zover je dat nog niet hebt gedaan, je krijgt dan €2,50 korting op de toegangsprijs. Er zijn nog plaatsen vrij, dus als je andere enthousiastelingen mee wilt nemen, zijn die van harte welkom. Wel graag inschrijven op de inschrijvingspagina.
Je kunt je ook inschrijven voor het wokken na de conferentie. Schrijf je svp zo snel mogelijk in, dan kunnen we plaatsen reserveren. De extra kosten bedragen €17,50 excl. drankjes.
Ik hoop dat jullie een geweldige conferentie zullen hebben komende 2 september, en dat er ook veel mensen mee gaan uit eten.
Met vriendelijke groet, effeiets anders 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to restore the paragraph too, but I think my script failed me somewhat. I've contacted the user to consider rewriting the paragraph rather then outright removing it; you may wish to join the discussion here. Thanks :) — Xyra e l / 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Commons:User:JoanneB made an slightly unusual request to Commons:User:Pfctdayelise's talk page earlier today. [3] This then got raised at the Commons Village Pump. Could you reply to me on en.wikipedia to confirm if this user is you or not. Thanks.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but i thought it had to be a wrong version of Donald. Anyways, i understand. Strange name. The 89 guy 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Constant Vandalism
the IP address 194.223.93.252,registered to Government schools; Maidenhead; GB,is performing constant vandalism,including one such act less then 10 minutes ago Pikajedi3
|
|
|
See this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JoanneB. Should this be copied to BJAODN? Jesse Viviano 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone at Admin coaching. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Thank you for helping with admin coaching! H ig hway Grammar Enforcer! 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems IP 69.217.73.2 starts its vandalism works again [4]. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ (Ŧ) 18:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
Hey! Just out of curiousity, what do you think of the election result? — Cel es tianpower háblame 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what went on with this person. The contributions show they made several edits to Harry Potter articles then went on to edit your user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a very merry and happy Christmas, if the relatives' cooking isn't up to scratch set the budgie on them :D - hoping for a peaceful and brave new year! -- Alf melmac 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)