This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Note: This is not a perfect chronological archive since I kept some still active conversations and notices on the active talk page.
Hi JoshuaZ. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
Hola, on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you told me I had to get a webpage blacklisted. Could you tell me how that is done? Rosa 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks for showing me the way how wikipedia works. Maybe you can have a look at these articles, and investigate if they are written according to the guidelines:
The fragment “the present cabinet, which is one of the most right wing cabinets since the late 19th century” is far from neutral, but I could not convince the rest of wikipedia this was the case..
Could you do something about these 2 articles? Thanks Jeff5102 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I assume that the new proposed blocking policy hasn't been implemented yet? You can still slap a temp-ban on the user ( User:65.197.192.130) though, can't you?
Question for you: What's to stop me (for example) from vandalising consistantly, and yet still contributing many useful edits to Wikipedia.. anonymously? -- Mal 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As I think you understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think that policy, as it stands, is not good enough. For example, I spent a few minutes having a look at the IP's contribs list, fixing the vandalised pages, adding a level 4 warning template, and following up afterwards (plus this discussion we're having). Instead of which, I cuold have been editing articles and otherwise contributing to the 'pedia. As it turns out, no action is going to be taken against this vandal (or vandals as the case may be).. so that has meant basically that my time has been wasted (other than to have fixed vandalism which shouldn't really have got through in the first place).
Don't get me wrong though - obviously I appreciate the work you (and other admins) put in to the alert pages and time taken to deliberate on issues etc etc. I just felt that I needed to vent my frustration at the policy as it stands. I'd love to hear your personal opinion and thoughts on the matter. Cheers. -- Mal 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh right.. I didn't reealise that anybody could deliberate on the Vandal alert page. Anyway ... have you taken part in the voting regarding the blocking policy? -- Mal 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity 0 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joshua
Please try to use "talk" pages when making changes to articles.
Although it isn't unheard of, it isn't the best etiquette to visit pages, and revert immediately. I'll assume you are acting in good faith on Ron Dellums, that is, that you came across on the article on your own and evaluated it, and determined what changes would be best, and made them. But, it might look a little better if the future you express your opinion as to why your changes are needed and also attempt to add meaningful content to articles.
That particular article has been frequented by users that know very little about Dellums and haven't shown any willingness to research the man.
Take care, Justforasecond 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Josh.
No, I didn't ask about the blog, and Pro-Lick didn't say anything about it in our communication. I'm honestly not too worried about it. Maybe you could suggest to Pro-Lick that taking that post down would be a sign of good-faith, and a good bridge-mending step? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Does it look OK to you now? -- Dangherous 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, I've asked you nicely to leave talk page messages to describe why you are making changes. I'd appreciate if you took me up on the offer.
Justforasecond 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. I see you have noticed the influx of Serbian nationalist editors, and are following closely. I originally tagged Zadar Kristallnacht for POV on my WP:NP patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following very closely. User:CeBuCCuCmeM popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created Template:Persecution of Serbs, which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Are you interested in investigating? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was just wrapping up my responses, thanks for being alert though :) -- Tawker 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stumped. There was a question "What do you understand will happen at the end of this five day discussion process?" What on earth is this 5 day discussion period of which User:Robchurch speaks? The RFA is a 7 day discussion period. Have I missed something? -- Dangherous 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 67.160.36.12 for 24 hours for vandalism, harassment etc. Please let me know if he continues to be a problem and I'll handle it. Gator (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that is I think the same vandal that made the User:Joshuaz (note lower case z) impostor earlier. I really don't understand what his problem is with me, he seems to think I did something on some other forum he was involved in. JoshuaZ 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ,
Please review the Enterprise Audit Shell. Please understand that EAS is simply a new version of the EXISTING software sudosh which already has a wiki article. EAS == Sudosh. I've also updated the discussion page. Also note that Freshmeat, SourceForge and the Sudo maintainer have blessed Enterprise Audit Shell and that I have 3rd party validation. This isn't simply a small program, tooting my own horn, or spam. It's just confusing because of the name change from Sudosh to EAS.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For one amazing explaination on your support vote (and the great job of keeping the counts up to date) - Keep up the good work! :) Tawker 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
" Among religions which treat these sciptures as divinely sourced, is there controversy as to whether some immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss, is controversial. " This is in the form of a declarative sentence, but the information content appears to be a question. Are you attempting to ask if there is controversey concerning if the fact that the Bible does not discuss some immoral acts might be controversial? I have reverted the paragraph because the current version does not make sense (or at the very least, is in no way clear). Dan Watts 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that should be "there is" rather than "is there" I'll fix it and revert back if you don't object. JoshuaZ 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JoshuaZ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. It was interesting to think about your questions; I still am trying to figure out what my perspective on adminship from the WP:PNT point of view is. Anyway, if you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! -- He: ah? 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey JoshuaZ, I replied to your comments on the talk page of AFD. Just wanted to let you know I've written my bot to update the yesterday pages from now on. Cheers! -- light darkness ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reminder. I have seen these answers.-- Jusjih 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC
Read over the relevant articles and talk pages. It's not about a "vote", its about "fact-finding", and if you don't have the time for fact-finding, please stop vandalizing my talk page. pat8722 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Or it might be because I'm not. If you don't have the time to investigate, STOP [personal attacks deleted by [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda]MY TALK PAGE. pat8722 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It takes FACTS, not CONCLUSIONS, to establish "who" is correct. An unsupported conclusion is MEANINGLESS. Furthermore, an allegation of vandalism is not prohibited under the personal attacks rule. An allegation of vandalism requires "fact finding". As it appears a small cabal can result in blocks against one who is STRICTLY FOLLOWING ALL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, I suspect you will block me if I again revert your vandalism of my own talk page today. So I will be back tommorrow to revert your vandalism of my talk page, while awaiting a real resolution of the real dispute, over whether William Connelley [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. pat8722 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no wikipedia policy. Does JoshuaZ, or any admin, or other, have "power" to permanently stop a user from editing their own talk page? If he tries to do that, would I then have to find another admin to engage in what I think is termed a "wheel war", so that I can re-edit it again? It's seeming very arbitrary to me at present, almost like any admin can do whatever he wants and its all a matter of who is willing to be dirtiest and who is in a political majority. I also don't understand why you are blanking out the word "vandalizing", is there a list somewhere that says that it is a prohibited word? I don't see you blanking out "vandalism", just "vandalizing", how come? You can respond here, as I have placed this on my watchlist. pat8722 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the libertarian talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean? and see the libertarian talk page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see connelley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". What is the procedure for removing your unfounded warnings from my talk page, without fear of being blocked for doing so? pat8722 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I found this on my talk page just now:
Please read m:Don't be a dick (In this case we can mean dick to mean head louse rather than penis), so give it a break, please. It is boring. — Dunc| ☺ 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I allowed to delete this under your definition of reverting "warnings"? pat8722 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, JoshuaZ/Archive 2! | ||
...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e mp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears you voted on my RFA and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers -- light darkness ( talk) 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, How did you know that was me? JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Hello JoshuaZ/Archive 2. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? |
Good move... Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) Mikker (...) 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- Curps 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my RFA. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by Ken Ham, which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Wikipedia of something I have learned, I try to add it.
Since I am new to both Wikipedia and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. Liberty4u 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. JoshuaZ 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've answered the questions that you posted here. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks -- Jay( Reply) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So wait...are you an admin?-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. JoshuaZ 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to see? Any ideas? joshbuddy talk 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I've added the reference to the deletion review of List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years you asked for.
Regards, Nick Mks 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. JoshuaZ 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. -- phh 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note here. Regards, Jay( Reply) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).
I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't really want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) Proto|| type 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. ℬastique▼ parℓer♥ voir♑ 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers -- He ah? 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Stargate Barnstar | ||
This user has been awarded with the
WikiProject Stargate's
Stargate Barnstar Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on
Stargate. -- Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) |
Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"
My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on wikipedia come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, - Will Beback 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on Cold Fusion. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, Jefffire 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. JoshuaZ 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to WP:3RR as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? User:Zoe| (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha Kernow 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: PubMed, Cochrane collaboration, HONcode and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. ackoz 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ : ) Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, FloNight talk 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page
"Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)
Just thought I'd be a dick and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the worst in existence. Have a nice day! brabblebrex 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you said that my proposal is close to vote stacking. What is vote stacking? Tobyk777 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, User:JedRothwell has been blocked for 24 hours. ~ MDD 46 96 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest on the matter of Malthusians. I do think that Eric Pianka certainly fits like a hand to a glove with this doctorine. Essentially it boils down to population control and the idea that humans are no better than animals and should be culled accordingly. There is certainly much science to argue for this, but the idea is morrally repugnant as it advocates massive genocide using the excuse that humans are destroying the planet. This is certainly at odds with the creationists who believe that human life is special and certainly above that of the animals or vegetation of the planet. They argue that science is reductionist in that it only deals with what can be measured by repeatable experiments, so it has no validity in matters of ethics.
The history of Malthusians is long and complex and stretches far further than the man who is credited for this doctrine. You might be interested in looking at the involvement of the British Royal Society and Lindon LaRouche’s EIR is probably the best researched source of information on its history.
This link has a collection of articles from EIR featuring this
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/contents.htm#environ
e.g. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/malthsay.htm
Malthusian was used with reference to his political stance on population reduction and a disregard for human life, which is an ethical subject. It does not have anything directly to do with creationism except that the label was applied to Forrest Mims his accuser.
I was just trying to make the issue a little clearer for your benefit. The links I provided were also for your benefit in order to show you the history of the subject so you would not think I was making it up or something. The site is a reprint of EIR articles and EIR is a long establish political publication. I could simply use the reference as in the issue number and author but the link was provided to help you so you don't need to go and buy the magazine back issue to check it. I appreciate it is not possible for you to be an expert in every subject but I hope this shows you that the alteration I made has grounding in published works of credibility.
Hi, I have been coming across you alot lately, at random times. (partialy because we are both active inn stargate) You are the most active wikipedian I know of. You are constantly voting on FAc and AFD and are very active on RFA. I think that you surely have enough edits to become an admin and have as clear of an understanding of wiki policy as anyone. You seem to know everything about wikipedia, even obscure stuff, like vote stacking. Youve helped so many people become admins, why not become an admin yourself? You are more than qualified. Tobyk777 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date. I can see from you user page that you do not like to discuss pseudoscience but I can assure you that this topic isn't, so I assume that I can talk to you freely about it.
This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html [5]
The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.
Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.
What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.
So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since science is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.
thanks
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 17 | 24 April 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
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.
I don't appreciate your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of RabinicLawyer simply because I side with him on the Somethingawful articles. I would appreciate if you retracted your sockpuppet comments. -- TrollHistorian 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Joshua, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ← Humus sapiens ну? 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
Jeesh, I'd just finished filling out a 3RR (which is a pain). Oh well, at least he's blocked. Thanks for helping! OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you add that new warning? My warning occured after the vandalism had stopped anyways. JoshuaZ 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
that word adds emphasis. I feel it is needed because too many people buy what I regard as bunk about how that movie is the truest to Bram Stoker's novel ever made. It may be closer in letter than most "dracula" movies made, but is so far from the spirit of the original I feel the differences and betrayals are need to be emphasised. We may discuss this more at length if you wish, or I may add a note on the article's talk page. -- Svartalf 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will quite happily find one - Give me a week or so, though, I'll need to set up a meeting with the tutor! HawkerTyphoon 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Which sections in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy are not sourced? Please be specific. -- JedRothwell 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delighted to see an editor of your caliber taking an interest in Meme. Please feel free to take a large hatchet to the darn thing. There is a constant string of people full to the brim of unsourced (mis) information editing that, and I am far too buried to do much about it. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
I suggest you start from Z up, and I go from D down? :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you the S R to Z ones.
(Can't believe that the "vote here" links are still present on some of these RfAs. If you spot any, you may want to remove them.) ;-) Kimchi.sg | talk 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my
request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.
|
-- M e ts501 talk • contribs 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ Thank you for keeping the tally up to date in my RFA. Did you notice that the voting is finished in AA arbcom case? Bet your glad to put that behind you! FloNight talk 04:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, which is just in time for exams, so I'll need to wait another week at least to do my own RfA. JoshuaZ 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My comment was directed at the whole process. Consider how much time you've spent on this issue over the last week, then multiply it against every person involved in this issue: how many articles could have been wikified, cleaned-up, or references found & added to with all of those hours? And don't take my comment personally: I'm including both sides of this issue. And I think almost everyone involved could have spent her/his time better on something else.
"Huh" sums up my opinion nicely: it took me less than a minute to add to the discussion, & less than a second for everyone to read. And you're the first person to wonder what I meant by it. -- llywrch 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Voting is evil...it's not a vote...and we don't compromise scientific integrity and encyclopedic quality based on the webspamming that conspiracy theorists routinely do in articles related to 9/11/01. Recognize that these people are trying hard to take over the information world with their nonsense and they are not to be taken lightly. The create new accounts all the time, post anonymously and use every dirty trick to influence in article space and on discussion pages. That is why the vote over at the 7 World Trade Center article is worthless.-- MONGO 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the help, sorry if I came off as a jerk. I'm monitoring the recent changes and recently created articles right now to get some vandalism watch / deletion stuff up on my contribs.. really, thanks drumguy 8800 - speak 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, is that there is such a large amount of it, and the page is too long as it is. It has been discussed on the talk page, and frankly it would be better to put material back in after sourcing it-- DCAnderson 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous vote on an AFD isn't vandalism, and it can't be reverted like you did to [6]. You can object to it by replying though. Computerjoe 's talk 16:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the individuals other comments in the last hour and the IP. The IP is a repeat vandal from a highschool (and has in the last few minutes claimed to be the principal and to be a teacher there) and has been giving deliberately nonsensical comments on AfDs and elswhere. The reversion was justified(since you disagreed, I won't revert again without your permission) JoshuaZ 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it is I, He Who "Argues" On RFAs. :P I was just wondering, what is the WikiPolicy on spelling? I.e. is colour the right way, or color? Neighbour or Neighbor? Thanks. _-M o P-_ 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on your RFA you said that your work prompted me. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you have me curious. Thanks Tobyk777 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, end of that sentence got cut off somehow, it should have said "prompted Tobyk777 to give me a barnstar." Thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, JoshuaZ/Archive 2, thank you so much for your vote, comments and correcting the tally in
my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... |
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 18 | 1 May 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
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.
Hello JoshuaZ. I noticed you mentioned the AA ruling on the AiG page. I was involved in the early days of the dispute (before arbitration) and am interested in what happened. Are you allowed to give me the link to the ruling? Ashmoo 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
To quote from Johnlee acting on behalf of the Arb Com "Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case." The decision is in more detail here. (The editor who made those edits was one of the ones mentioned in the et al. Note that the Arb Com did not conclude that any of the editors were necessarily Jonathan Sarfati). JoshuaZ 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're trying to understand my point. I was nearly ready to give up on the article; I did not, however, truly wish to believe that all of the TalkOrigins Archive's supporters were unreasonable and bull-headed; I really think we want to use language that is as clear and unambiguous as possible. I do apologize for missing that one website does use a TalkOrigins article, however. The Jade Knight 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on Stargate device there clearly are 9 chevrons. You, me and many other users who know about stargate, and are able to look at pictures realize and know this. However, some IP keeps changing it to 7 over and over again. It's like a edit war, except its 45 vs one. Almost everyone in the project keeps reverting this IP, but he keeps changing 9 to 7. What should we do? Tobyk777 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you often 'go rouge'? ;-) agapetos_angel 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! Where would you suggest I make such a pledge? - Amgine 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oule, Ave, and Hello. I would like to thank you for voting to keep the Aleksandra Wasowicz article (even though you provided a vote entailing a "weak keep"). Anyway, thanks for voting to keep the article. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 3, 2006 12:37 P.M. EST
I didn't put that phrase in as an advert; I simply meant to portray that even within the rank and file of the young earth movement there is a self proclaimed crisis regarding young earth ideas. However, I don't object to you removing the sentence.-- 146.244.138.41 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!
Hi Joshua,
I have just answered your question on my RFA page. Hope you find it satisfactory.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
Hollow are the Ori disagrees with your discussion page no cleaning suggestion. Hato believes the discussion page should be kept free of clutter, especially free of pointless conversations. Maybe I will create a proper archive but nothing yet posted to my discussion page has been worth saving in my interpretation. How did you notice and do you honestly care? We should continue this discussion here on your talk page, I am watching it now, if you believe it is likely to be worth saving. Hollow are the Ori 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that tract is one of his more notable tracts. It has, not, for example, been parodied multiple times nor is it one of his more well sold ones. JoshuaZ 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I left a comment on the RFA the_ed17 (talk) Use these! 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
NOW it better be there. I don't know, I thought i left a comment there, maybe I forgot to hit save or something. i dunno. :) the_ed17 (talk) Use these! 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ/Archive 2, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
Hello, JoshuaZ/Archive 2, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Radio Kirk talk to me 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
I noticed your reverting at the Hammond article. Please see another edit this user made on the Jack Hyles. [7] Ths user reverted additional sources, grammar correctons, and a book mention of Glover without providing any reason for specific changes on the talk. Arbusto 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, how do I change my vote w/o messing up the numbers??? Thanks, User_talk:Dlohcierekim 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Mackensen:
How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. Raphael1 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: regarding question four of [11], User:Lightdarkness/ARV is a javascript tool used to automatically report vandals to AIV; the fact that it marks such edits as minor is not user-controlled. ~ PseudoSudo 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, doh, I knew that. I didn't notice it was an ARV-assisted report. Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the question. JoshuaZ 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, good luck with your RfA. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Note: This is not a perfect chronological archive since I kept some still active conversations and notices on the active talk page.
Hi JoshuaZ. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
Hola, on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you told me I had to get a webpage blacklisted. Could you tell me how that is done? Rosa 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks for showing me the way how wikipedia works. Maybe you can have a look at these articles, and investigate if they are written according to the guidelines:
The fragment “the present cabinet, which is one of the most right wing cabinets since the late 19th century” is far from neutral, but I could not convince the rest of wikipedia this was the case..
Could you do something about these 2 articles? Thanks Jeff5102 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I assume that the new proposed blocking policy hasn't been implemented yet? You can still slap a temp-ban on the user ( User:65.197.192.130) though, can't you?
Question for you: What's to stop me (for example) from vandalising consistantly, and yet still contributing many useful edits to Wikipedia.. anonymously? -- Mal 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As I think you understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think that policy, as it stands, is not good enough. For example, I spent a few minutes having a look at the IP's contribs list, fixing the vandalised pages, adding a level 4 warning template, and following up afterwards (plus this discussion we're having). Instead of which, I cuold have been editing articles and otherwise contributing to the 'pedia. As it turns out, no action is going to be taken against this vandal (or vandals as the case may be).. so that has meant basically that my time has been wasted (other than to have fixed vandalism which shouldn't really have got through in the first place).
Don't get me wrong though - obviously I appreciate the work you (and other admins) put in to the alert pages and time taken to deliberate on issues etc etc. I just felt that I needed to vent my frustration at the policy as it stands. I'd love to hear your personal opinion and thoughts on the matter. Cheers. -- Mal 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh right.. I didn't reealise that anybody could deliberate on the Vandal alert page. Anyway ... have you taken part in the voting regarding the blocking policy? -- Mal 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity 0 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joshua
Please try to use "talk" pages when making changes to articles.
Although it isn't unheard of, it isn't the best etiquette to visit pages, and revert immediately. I'll assume you are acting in good faith on Ron Dellums, that is, that you came across on the article on your own and evaluated it, and determined what changes would be best, and made them. But, it might look a little better if the future you express your opinion as to why your changes are needed and also attempt to add meaningful content to articles.
That particular article has been frequented by users that know very little about Dellums and haven't shown any willingness to research the man.
Take care, Justforasecond 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Josh.
No, I didn't ask about the blog, and Pro-Lick didn't say anything about it in our communication. I'm honestly not too worried about it. Maybe you could suggest to Pro-Lick that taking that post down would be a sign of good-faith, and a good bridge-mending step? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Does it look OK to you now? -- Dangherous 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, I've asked you nicely to leave talk page messages to describe why you are making changes. I'd appreciate if you took me up on the offer.
Justforasecond 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. I see you have noticed the influx of Serbian nationalist editors, and are following closely. I originally tagged Zadar Kristallnacht for POV on my WP:NP patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following very closely. User:CeBuCCuCmeM popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created Template:Persecution of Serbs, which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Are you interested in investigating? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was just wrapping up my responses, thanks for being alert though :) -- Tawker 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stumped. There was a question "What do you understand will happen at the end of this five day discussion process?" What on earth is this 5 day discussion period of which User:Robchurch speaks? The RFA is a 7 day discussion period. Have I missed something? -- Dangherous 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 67.160.36.12 for 24 hours for vandalism, harassment etc. Please let me know if he continues to be a problem and I'll handle it. Gator (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that is I think the same vandal that made the User:Joshuaz (note lower case z) impostor earlier. I really don't understand what his problem is with me, he seems to think I did something on some other forum he was involved in. JoshuaZ 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ,
Please review the Enterprise Audit Shell. Please understand that EAS is simply a new version of the EXISTING software sudosh which already has a wiki article. EAS == Sudosh. I've also updated the discussion page. Also note that Freshmeat, SourceForge and the Sudo maintainer have blessed Enterprise Audit Shell and that I have 3rd party validation. This isn't simply a small program, tooting my own horn, or spam. It's just confusing because of the name change from Sudosh to EAS.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For one amazing explaination on your support vote (and the great job of keeping the counts up to date) - Keep up the good work! :) Tawker 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
" Among religions which treat these sciptures as divinely sourced, is there controversy as to whether some immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss, is controversial. " This is in the form of a declarative sentence, but the information content appears to be a question. Are you attempting to ask if there is controversey concerning if the fact that the Bible does not discuss some immoral acts might be controversial? I have reverted the paragraph because the current version does not make sense (or at the very least, is in no way clear). Dan Watts 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that should be "there is" rather than "is there" I'll fix it and revert back if you don't object. JoshuaZ 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JoshuaZ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. It was interesting to think about your questions; I still am trying to figure out what my perspective on adminship from the WP:PNT point of view is. Anyway, if you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! -- He: ah? 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey JoshuaZ, I replied to your comments on the talk page of AFD. Just wanted to let you know I've written my bot to update the yesterday pages from now on. Cheers! -- light darkness ( talk) 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reminder. I have seen these answers.-- Jusjih 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC
Read over the relevant articles and talk pages. It's not about a "vote", its about "fact-finding", and if you don't have the time for fact-finding, please stop vandalizing my talk page. pat8722 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Or it might be because I'm not. If you don't have the time to investigate, STOP [personal attacks deleted by [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda]MY TALK PAGE. pat8722 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It takes FACTS, not CONCLUSIONS, to establish "who" is correct. An unsupported conclusion is MEANINGLESS. Furthermore, an allegation of vandalism is not prohibited under the personal attacks rule. An allegation of vandalism requires "fact finding". As it appears a small cabal can result in blocks against one who is STRICTLY FOLLOWING ALL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, I suspect you will block me if I again revert your vandalism of my own talk page today. So I will be back tommorrow to revert your vandalism of my talk page, while awaiting a real resolution of the real dispute, over whether William Connelley [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. pat8722 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no wikipedia policy. Does JoshuaZ, or any admin, or other, have "power" to permanently stop a user from editing their own talk page? If he tries to do that, would I then have to find another admin to engage in what I think is termed a "wheel war", so that I can re-edit it again? It's seeming very arbitrary to me at present, almost like any admin can do whatever he wants and its all a matter of who is willing to be dirtiest and who is in a political majority. I also don't understand why you are blanking out the word "vandalizing", is there a list somewhere that says that it is a prohibited word? I don't see you blanking out "vandalism", just "vandalizing", how come? You can respond here, as I have placed this on my watchlist. pat8722 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the libertarian talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean? and see the libertarian talk page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see connelley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". What is the procedure for removing your unfounded warnings from my talk page, without fear of being blocked for doing so? pat8722 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I found this on my talk page just now:
Please read m:Don't be a dick (In this case we can mean dick to mean head louse rather than penis), so give it a break, please. It is boring. — Dunc| ☺ 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I allowed to delete this under your definition of reverting "warnings"? pat8722 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, JoshuaZ/Archive 2! | ||
...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e mp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears you voted on my RFA and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers -- light darkness ( talk) 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, How did you know that was me? JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Hello JoshuaZ/Archive 2. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? |
Good move... Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) Mikker (...) 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- Curps 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my RFA. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by Ken Ham, which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Wikipedia of something I have learned, I try to add it.
Since I am new to both Wikipedia and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. Liberty4u 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. JoshuaZ 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've answered the questions that you posted here. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks -- Jay( Reply) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So wait...are you an admin?-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. JoshuaZ 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to see? Any ideas? joshbuddy talk 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I've added the reference to the deletion review of List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years you asked for.
Regards, Nick Mks 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. JoshuaZ 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. -- phh 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note here. Regards, Jay( Reply) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).
I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't really want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) Proto|| type 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. ℬastique▼ parℓer♥ voir♑ 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers -- He ah? 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The Stargate Barnstar | ||
This user has been awarded with the
WikiProject Stargate's
Stargate Barnstar Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on
Stargate. -- Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) |
Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"
My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on wikipedia come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, - Will Beback 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on Cold Fusion. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, Jefffire 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. JoshuaZ 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to WP:3RR as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? User:Zoe| (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha Kernow 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: PubMed, Cochrane collaboration, HONcode and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. ackoz 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ : ) Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, FloNight talk 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page
"Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)
Just thought I'd be a dick and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the worst in existence. Have a nice day! brabblebrex 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you said that my proposal is close to vote stacking. What is vote stacking? Tobyk777 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, User:JedRothwell has been blocked for 24 hours. ~ MDD 46 96 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest on the matter of Malthusians. I do think that Eric Pianka certainly fits like a hand to a glove with this doctorine. Essentially it boils down to population control and the idea that humans are no better than animals and should be culled accordingly. There is certainly much science to argue for this, but the idea is morrally repugnant as it advocates massive genocide using the excuse that humans are destroying the planet. This is certainly at odds with the creationists who believe that human life is special and certainly above that of the animals or vegetation of the planet. They argue that science is reductionist in that it only deals with what can be measured by repeatable experiments, so it has no validity in matters of ethics.
The history of Malthusians is long and complex and stretches far further than the man who is credited for this doctrine. You might be interested in looking at the involvement of the British Royal Society and Lindon LaRouche’s EIR is probably the best researched source of information on its history.
This link has a collection of articles from EIR featuring this
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/contents.htm#environ
e.g. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/malthsay.htm
Malthusian was used with reference to his political stance on population reduction and a disregard for human life, which is an ethical subject. It does not have anything directly to do with creationism except that the label was applied to Forrest Mims his accuser.
I was just trying to make the issue a little clearer for your benefit. The links I provided were also for your benefit in order to show you the history of the subject so you would not think I was making it up or something. The site is a reprint of EIR articles and EIR is a long establish political publication. I could simply use the reference as in the issue number and author but the link was provided to help you so you don't need to go and buy the magazine back issue to check it. I appreciate it is not possible for you to be an expert in every subject but I hope this shows you that the alteration I made has grounding in published works of credibility.
Hi, I have been coming across you alot lately, at random times. (partialy because we are both active inn stargate) You are the most active wikipedian I know of. You are constantly voting on FAc and AFD and are very active on RFA. I think that you surely have enough edits to become an admin and have as clear of an understanding of wiki policy as anyone. You seem to know everything about wikipedia, even obscure stuff, like vote stacking. Youve helped so many people become admins, why not become an admin yourself? You are more than qualified. Tobyk777 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date. I can see from you user page that you do not like to discuss pseudoscience but I can assure you that this topic isn't, so I assume that I can talk to you freely about it.
This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html [5]
The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.
Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.
What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.
So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since science is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.
thanks
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 17 | 24 April 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
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.
I don't appreciate your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of RabinicLawyer simply because I side with him on the Somethingawful articles. I would appreciate if you retracted your sockpuppet comments. -- TrollHistorian 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Joshua, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ← Humus sapiens ну? 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
Jeesh, I'd just finished filling out a 3RR (which is a pain). Oh well, at least he's blocked. Thanks for helping! OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you add that new warning? My warning occured after the vandalism had stopped anyways. JoshuaZ 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
that word adds emphasis. I feel it is needed because too many people buy what I regard as bunk about how that movie is the truest to Bram Stoker's novel ever made. It may be closer in letter than most "dracula" movies made, but is so far from the spirit of the original I feel the differences and betrayals are need to be emphasised. We may discuss this more at length if you wish, or I may add a note on the article's talk page. -- Svartalf 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will quite happily find one - Give me a week or so, though, I'll need to set up a meeting with the tutor! HawkerTyphoon 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Which sections in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy are not sourced? Please be specific. -- JedRothwell 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delighted to see an editor of your caliber taking an interest in Meme. Please feel free to take a large hatchet to the darn thing. There is a constant string of people full to the brim of unsourced (mis) information editing that, and I am far too buried to do much about it. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
I suggest you start from Z up, and I go from D down? :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you the S R to Z ones.
(Can't believe that the "vote here" links are still present on some of these RfAs. If you spot any, you may want to remove them.) ;-) Kimchi.sg | talk 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my
request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.
|
-- M e ts501 talk • contribs 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ Thank you for keeping the tally up to date in my RFA. Did you notice that the voting is finished in AA arbcom case? Bet your glad to put that behind you! FloNight talk 04:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, which is just in time for exams, so I'll need to wait another week at least to do my own RfA. JoshuaZ 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My comment was directed at the whole process. Consider how much time you've spent on this issue over the last week, then multiply it against every person involved in this issue: how many articles could have been wikified, cleaned-up, or references found & added to with all of those hours? And don't take my comment personally: I'm including both sides of this issue. And I think almost everyone involved could have spent her/his time better on something else.
"Huh" sums up my opinion nicely: it took me less than a minute to add to the discussion, & less than a second for everyone to read. And you're the first person to wonder what I meant by it. -- llywrch 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Voting is evil...it's not a vote...and we don't compromise scientific integrity and encyclopedic quality based on the webspamming that conspiracy theorists routinely do in articles related to 9/11/01. Recognize that these people are trying hard to take over the information world with their nonsense and they are not to be taken lightly. The create new accounts all the time, post anonymously and use every dirty trick to influence in article space and on discussion pages. That is why the vote over at the 7 World Trade Center article is worthless.-- MONGO 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the help, sorry if I came off as a jerk. I'm monitoring the recent changes and recently created articles right now to get some vandalism watch / deletion stuff up on my contribs.. really, thanks drumguy 8800 - speak 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, is that there is such a large amount of it, and the page is too long as it is. It has been discussed on the talk page, and frankly it would be better to put material back in after sourcing it-- DCAnderson 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous vote on an AFD isn't vandalism, and it can't be reverted like you did to [6]. You can object to it by replying though. Computerjoe 's talk 16:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the individuals other comments in the last hour and the IP. The IP is a repeat vandal from a highschool (and has in the last few minutes claimed to be the principal and to be a teacher there) and has been giving deliberately nonsensical comments on AfDs and elswhere. The reversion was justified(since you disagreed, I won't revert again without your permission) JoshuaZ 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it is I, He Who "Argues" On RFAs. :P I was just wondering, what is the WikiPolicy on spelling? I.e. is colour the right way, or color? Neighbour or Neighbor? Thanks. _-M o P-_ 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on your RFA you said that your work prompted me. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you have me curious. Thanks Tobyk777 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, end of that sentence got cut off somehow, it should have said "prompted Tobyk777 to give me a barnstar." Thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, JoshuaZ/Archive 2, thank you so much for your vote, comments and correcting the tally in
my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... |
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 18 | 1 May 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
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.
Hello JoshuaZ. I noticed you mentioned the AA ruling on the AiG page. I was involved in the early days of the dispute (before arbitration) and am interested in what happened. Are you allowed to give me the link to the ruling? Ashmoo 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
To quote from Johnlee acting on behalf of the Arb Com "Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case." The decision is in more detail here. (The editor who made those edits was one of the ones mentioned in the et al. Note that the Arb Com did not conclude that any of the editors were necessarily Jonathan Sarfati). JoshuaZ 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're trying to understand my point. I was nearly ready to give up on the article; I did not, however, truly wish to believe that all of the TalkOrigins Archive's supporters were unreasonable and bull-headed; I really think we want to use language that is as clear and unambiguous as possible. I do apologize for missing that one website does use a TalkOrigins article, however. The Jade Knight 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on Stargate device there clearly are 9 chevrons. You, me and many other users who know about stargate, and are able to look at pictures realize and know this. However, some IP keeps changing it to 7 over and over again. It's like a edit war, except its 45 vs one. Almost everyone in the project keeps reverting this IP, but he keeps changing 9 to 7. What should we do? Tobyk777 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you often 'go rouge'? ;-) agapetos_angel 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! Where would you suggest I make such a pledge? - Amgine 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oule, Ave, and Hello. I would like to thank you for voting to keep the Aleksandra Wasowicz article (even though you provided a vote entailing a "weak keep"). Anyway, thanks for voting to keep the article. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 3, 2006 12:37 P.M. EST
I didn't put that phrase in as an advert; I simply meant to portray that even within the rank and file of the young earth movement there is a self proclaimed crisis regarding young earth ideas. However, I don't object to you removing the sentence.-- 146.244.138.41 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!
Hi Joshua,
I have just answered your question on my RFA page. Hope you find it satisfactory.
Thanks
Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
Hollow are the Ori disagrees with your discussion page no cleaning suggestion. Hato believes the discussion page should be kept free of clutter, especially free of pointless conversations. Maybe I will create a proper archive but nothing yet posted to my discussion page has been worth saving in my interpretation. How did you notice and do you honestly care? We should continue this discussion here on your talk page, I am watching it now, if you believe it is likely to be worth saving. Hollow are the Ori 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that tract is one of his more notable tracts. It has, not, for example, been parodied multiple times nor is it one of his more well sold ones. JoshuaZ 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I left a comment on the RFA the_ed17 (talk) Use these! 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
NOW it better be there. I don't know, I thought i left a comment there, maybe I forgot to hit save or something. i dunno. :) the_ed17 (talk) Use these! 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ/Archive 2, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
Hello, JoshuaZ/Archive 2, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Radio Kirk talk to me 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
I noticed your reverting at the Hammond article. Please see another edit this user made on the Jack Hyles. [7] Ths user reverted additional sources, grammar correctons, and a book mention of Glover without providing any reason for specific changes on the talk. Arbusto 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, how do I change my vote w/o messing up the numbers??? Thanks, User_talk:Dlohcierekim 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Mackensen:
How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. Raphael1 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: regarding question four of [11], User:Lightdarkness/ARV is a javascript tool used to automatically report vandals to AIV; the fact that it marks such edits as minor is not user-controlled. ~ PseudoSudo 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, doh, I knew that. I didn't notice it was an ARV-assisted report. Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the question. JoshuaZ 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, good luck with your RfA. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)