![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
While he may have certain privelidges as a representative of the foundation, he does not have the right to abuse those privelidges to further the cause of a personal gripe. Removing comments is a controversial act at the best of times, but a representative of the foundation removing them because they ask questions that he doesn't want people asking is outrageous. My aim is to resolve the issue diplomatically, and through the rules established here on Wikipedia - while he may be able to circumvent these rules somewhat, that doesn't mean it's good or constructive to do so, especially not in this case. -- Badharlick 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block for User:CrazyInSane. I find nothing in what you have written there, the diffs you supplied at WP:AN/I, or in his recent contribution history to justify any block and certianly not an indefinite block. I am concerned at your apparent lack of discussion with the user prior to blocking. It is normal to warn people and to proceed through an escalation of warnings - at the very least from {{ blatantvandal}} to blocked. You do that before going to WP:AN/I. Can you please explain to me what it is that exhausted the community's patience.-- A Y Arktos\ talk 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You said: "More to the point- Wikipedia does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"
This is not true for technical areas, which is where my confusion comes from. e.g., From uric acid "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can...." Pproctor 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope the inevitable kickback is not getting to you. I said I'd post the gory details, I did that at User:JzG/Laura, I think you saw. I'm now moving house. I shall do my best not to get divorced, two out of the three top stress producers is probably enough... Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ. Thank you for your questions. Before I answer them, could you please clarify question #3? Thanks. G. H e 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Er yes. I'm not sure what I was trying to say there. I've removed it. JoshuaZ 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Your questions are now answered and are available on my RfA page. G. H e 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello again Joshua, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm truly glad I recieved your approval—your pragmatic approach to conflicts and your careful analysis of RFAs, AFDs, etc. has changed the way I approach things on wikipedia. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.
|
There has been considerable back and forth edits removing and adding the NPOV tag. I believe it should stay for reasons I've stated on the talk page. the most vocal hoax theorist keeps reverting it claiming that my reasons given for adding the tag are not valid. I don't want to run afoul of edit or revert war, but lack the wiki-experience that would allow me to move forward if that is possible. It may be the that hoax theorist editor is intractable. They certainly don't seem to engage appropriately in the discussion on the talk page -- i.e personal attacks, failure to AGF, blatent POV edits, etc. Please advise. Numskll 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, in your discussion with new user Schlafly, your responded to him in a decidedly unhelpful way. Specifically, you begged the question and changed the subject, when he criticized the ID articles for bias. When someone explains what is wrong with an article, it's not helpful to say, "Anyway, the article is pretty good overall." We should help him fix it! -- Uncle Ed 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the light side of the Force. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra info on the Bulgarian music scene. In view of that, I have now changed my vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waste_of_time#.5B.5BWaste_of_time.5D.5D to a delete. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read a) the article? b) the AFD?
It was spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, glorious spam. It was also a vanity article, for a non-notable company, and it was also a neologism that the non-notable company had invented to promote itself in its own spam.
Enough for you? DS 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks
Thanks for getting onto that. I was going at full speed with three screens open and I couldn't keep up with him! - Richardcavell 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
At User talk:Aussie pingu you gave a last warning for vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism, but who first contributed an article on St Francis of Assisi Primary School which appeared innocuous but not notable. I've flagged it for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good work, .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A problem of vandalism in Harun Yahya page is going on. Need your atttention. Please. Jitt 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for rewarding Jitt's request. Jeff5102 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll withdraw it now; next time maybe you could nominate me! -- TheM62Manchester 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just notifying you of the expired block and that if you are going to make a RfC for my username I am ready to respond. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
for the comment on WP:AN - I laughed quite immoderately :-D Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that page, good to know there wasn't some grand mistake I'm just forgetting about. I wouldn't mind seeing what it was there, if you'd email it to me. I believe my email link should be turned on (though it's seemed to turn itself back off randomly in the past). - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I already have: [3] Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[4] Thanks! -- Durin 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I did find the message in question in the users talk page about the vandalism. I also feel certain activity posts were too low, and should have been made before attempting to become admin. My oppose vote still continues to stand. -- Masssiveego 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You and I have never interacted, or at least never on a significant level, which is why I am asking you for assistance. I am tired. I want to leave, but not with bullshit on my talkpage. JzG has protected my talkpage and altered a disclaimer I put up, along with deleting the comments of several users he doesnt like. He has made clear, both through his edit summaries and ongoing harassment that he wishes me to leave. As a compromise, I will leave if the disclaimer he posted on my talkpage is removed and replaced with: "I am no longer editing under this account." Nothing more than that, and nothing less. Then I'll leave. For Good. Tchadienne 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please consider extending his block for a further 48 hours for personal attacks on JzG made on his talk page. I'm sure JzG feels he can't do this himself. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
48 hours is not long enough. No one would protest indef. JBKramer 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You just gave a 24 hour block to an AOL IP, and like most AOL blocks, there's no sign of vandalism, and the blocking summary doesn't make any sense, so unless this involves some sort of situation with deleted pages, that may be hiding vandalistic edits, I'd like to ask that the block be lifted so that I can continue to comment about dark matter-- 152.163.100.137 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ. Thanks for replying to that creationist on my talk page. I was a little snowed under with work, so was grateful for the intervention. Not that it did a lot of good. The whole exchange reminded me, again, that most of the time there's really no arguing with these people. It's just not possible to make any headway. Still, always worth trying, since you never know when you might make a difference. Cheers, -- Plumbago 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, your repeated removal of Evolution and reference from Pseudoscience appears to be vandalism. I have explained in edit summaries how this entry meets the criterion for the list in the article. The criterion states (currently) that the items listed have critics that state that part or all of an item listed has elements of pseudoscience. I realize that your POV may be contrary to some of these critics, but as a Wikipedia administrator, I would have thought you would know better than to censor such criticism. ross nixon 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for this: [5] -- Uncle Ed 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw my page linked to User:Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas where you accused me of being a sockpuppet.
The conclusion is your socketpuppet accusation is nothing but a clueless racist and abusive accusation based on the clueless "best guess" of another racist and abusive editor. Shame on you! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And I'd bet you're right, too -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This guy is frantically appealing his block. For reasons I've given on his talk page, my sockpuppet sense is tingling, and I wonder if you have any further evidence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My email should now be verified. -- Davril2020 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
About your corrections of my definition of Flying Spaghetti Monster
Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parodic religion! so obvious , but parodic it´s an adjective ,not a definition.
I think the main goal of this "religion" its that ultra religious people start to think more criticism about her/his own religions.
And to do that, you must put on the same level.
So, the definition "religion" as is, its quite accurate.
P.D:
What its parodic? a man walking over the sea?
Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no difference.
Sorry to butt in, in your statement I think you meant RfArb, not RfA. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
Er, yes. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are feeling fine. I have answered your question in my RfA to the best of my ability. Hope that my answer proves to be satisfactory to you. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You had written in part: "unsourced POV and not relevant to the matter at hand." What would be recognized by you as "sourced POV and relevant to the matter at hand?" Awinger48 14:47 EST, 17 August 2006.
User:FeloniousMonk removed what you authorized me to add as a revision saying, "(rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ). I put the addition back in. I added an explanation at User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Authorized_Revision_of_Dominionism_Entry referring him back to this talk session with you. I also added an explanation to the Dominionism discussion page at Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches. -- Awinger48 13:28, 18 August 2006. (UTC)
I wondered if you'd noticed my suggestion. I think it could be useful if he was asked about some specific basic aspects, which he might be expected to know at this point, if you wished to pursue your initial doubts. Tyrenius 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I presume your conclusions will appear on the RfA. Tyrenius 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? I've been blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system" by following policy and posting my 4th revert just outside the 24 hour. Yet Netscott gets away with going against a consensus and reverting 5 times in 8 hours!
Why? Can someone explain this? Deuterium 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be a good faith edit, but I could have sworn I used the rollback option, and not a warning. 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)~
You know you've got User:PinchasC [8] and User:Bishonen [9] suggesting Deuterium ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs blocking with you being the only dissenting voice. Would you kindly take steps in accord with others? ( → Netscott) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. No problem. -- Szvest 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have missed your message. Perhaps there was some kind of problem with my Gmail account while I was away; it's working fine now so you may want to resend (or feel free to use my talk page).
Thanks,
AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your comment on iav. He violated 3RR, repeatedly removing speedy tags every few minutes. I reported him only a few minutes after his third removal of the tag, how is that not doing anything?-- Crossmr 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not fun, but contentious. See the latest stuff to delete bio of Roberta Wenocur. They wiped out bio on Elaine Zanutto. Maybe I will stop contributing. Is this a power trip for some people? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as a "good deed", but it seems to be "Truthiness" -- Truth by Democracy, with an in-crowd of power-hungry people with a lot of time on their hands. You were fair, but many are not. I suspect gender bias, also, among many. MathStatWoman 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, thanks for your "prepublication" feedback at the RFarb. [10]
I should have made it clear that what YECs reject is not the existence of the fossil record but its authenticity. Real scientists (like geologists and biologists) all agree (1) that fossils show actual animals and plants that lived long ago and (2) that carbon dating shows that they lived much, much longer than 10,000 years ago.
YECs might concede the first point, but they vigorously reject the second point, right? -- Uncle Ed 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone should work on Julia Robinson's bio, but Constance Reid is not really a mathematician, but a biographer.
But if living mathematicians and scientists are not to be included even if their work has led to something like restoring hearing, then the male mathematician's bios should be deleted, too, to be consistent and fair: Herbert Wilf, John Allen Paulos, etc. However, I think that is not the way to go. More info, not less, seems good, doesn't it? Instead we keep all of these bios and keep improving them: men and women alike. MathStatWoman 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JzG semi-protected a page from clear vandalism, and that semi-protection was pulled off by a new user who has only made edits at that article. I think the anon. IP and that user are the same. Diana Irey is currently a candiate int he 2006 elections. C56C 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take back your comment about edit warring. You yourself made the suggestion that one of my edits (which another person reverted) should go back with the following phrasing:
Or don't take it back. I'll just use it in Evidence as one more example of a false accusation, easily disprovable by diff's. I will ask, "How can it be edit warring if the very change I made is approved by the person who accuses me of edit warring?" -- Uncle Ed 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
...For cleaning up vandalism on my userpage! HawkerTyphoon 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
None of the sources brought, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm , deal with the accusation that kosher slaughter is banned in these countries because of anti-Semitism. People keep reading the article, and saying "wait a minute, the ban was to protect animals from inhumane treatment, not because of anti-Semitism. I need to go and balance the article there, because the other side of the argument hasn't been shown". The problem is, they keep making up "the other argument", they don't quote someone else making it. What they need is a good source saying "however, the proponents of the ban insist their actions are not anti-Semitic, but rather simply to protect animals from unnecessary pain etc." The WP:NOR policy is quite clear; it specifically excludes material if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Moreover, it states that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. The argument FCYTravis is making has not been made by a reputable source, it has been made by FCYTravis. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I added my two cents....I'm also thinking we should archive the old "definition of deaths in humans" threads, so that we don't have people commenting in the wrong place. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.
If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.
If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.
BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
John McGinness says:
I was quite upset to learn of the outrageous mischaracterization in this edit by Rod Ball ( talk · contribs), not only of what I know, have read, and have done at Wikipedia, but of what I myself told him about what I have read.
Can I ask you to revisit and verify one relevant point? You mentioned in your comment the inadequate citations offered in the current version of Bell's spaceship paradox. The reason for this lack is that in the course of lengthy edit wars with numerous other users including myself, Rod Ball removed the citations I had added to my much earlier and much more carefully crafted version, which you can see here. As you can see, I was careful to include judiciously chosen citations both to the mainstream and to dissident viewpoints.
As I say in my statement, Rod Ball's outrageous misrepresentations and refusal to accept even mathematical proof that he is wrong eventually led me to abandon my efforts to add content to the Wikipedia, which I count as just one of his sins, although perhaps not the least. It has been very upsetting to find out that in my absence he has been so outrageously misrepresenting my own efforts, not least because I spent so much time trying to carefully explain to him my views and the reasoning process by which I had arrived at them.--- CH 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then what the hell is he doing? The comments are just wrong. •Jim62sch• 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs |
It seems that there are some users in Wikipedia not eligible to the general rules [12]-- Nixer 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
He just does not seem to give up. He takes every edit I do at Pluto as a revert, when my last edit was so minor it didn't even change the page length. Ryūlóng 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You're an admin who's opinion I respect, since you helped me out with the trouble I had with Netscott. Some users, including admin Jayjg, are trying to delete an article written by me, Israel-South Africa relations, because it's a "POV fork" of Foreign relations of Israel.
I think this is really unfair because the article is extremely well sourced and balanced, Foreign relations of Israel is already quite large and there are many similar spin-off articles such as Israel-Venezuela relations. What do you think? Deuterium 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AHolywarrior&diff=72161636&oldid=72033047
I was wondering if this can be construed as a violation of
WP:Civil or
WP:NPA.Thank you very much.
Hkelkar
11:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I see indeed only the three reversions by User:Holywarrior. And the statement "rv,even 3RR does not apply in such a case" doesn't claim the 3RR doesn't apply to him, but refers to WP:BLP. It is arguable whether WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material in fact applies, but I wouldn't consider it bad faith. -- Pjacobi 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the 3RR does apply in this case, but the four reverts (edit nr. 5 is does not revert to the same version, but to a compromise suggestion by Hkelkar) are spread over more than 24 hours. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours, which are not technically a 3RRvio. Please be more careful before blocking, I do suggest you unblock the user, or at least shorten the block to 12 hours as a warning to not game the 3RR (which is not the same as straightforwardly violating it). (ᛎ) qɐp 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with dab. Holywarrior deserved every minute of the 25 hours he got. Bakaman Bakatalk 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a highly misleading comment put up by joshua on my talk page.There are other too, but let me sort out this one first.
Holy|
Warrior
15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::: I am closing this matter from my side and expect the same from others too.Thanks for unblocking though Holywarrior 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get work work on them right away. — Xyra e l / 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what happened there - never heard of that user, his name just seemed to appear at the start of my post. The 64.12.XXX.XX AOL guy has to be a bot. -- Charlesknight 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support (and the first, at that) of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk) 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Josh,
I'd like your opinion of this relatively moderate articulation of intelligent design; could you point out some of its weaknesses?
"The question 'why has the trend of evolution been upwards?' is not in the least explained by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. That doctrine explains only why some kinds of organisms, having emerged, manage to survive. If survival were the only goal, however, then the very emergence of living things would be inexplicable: life itself is comparatively deficient in survival value, since the art of persistence is to be dead. What we unhesitatingly call the higher organisms, furthermore, are even less capable of survival than lower ones: otters, whales, and humans are transient species compared with viruses, bacteria, and even beetles. The problem <fnord> OK, so there's no Wikipedia article here, per se </fnord> set by the doctrine of evolution is to explain how complex organism with such deficient survival power ever evolved. One answer would be the rejection of the 'evolutionist fallacy', which assumes that fitness for sruvival is identical with the best exemplification of the Art of Life. The point is that the evloutionary process is driven by some criterion other than mere survival, this criterion being 'increase in satisfaction', that is, increase in the realization of intrinsic value. The existence of this criterion provides another reason to regard our world as created by a divine power."
The quote is from a book by David Ray Griffen, a contemporary exponent of 'process philosophy' and 'naturalistic theism'.
As for who I am, you should be able to figure it out from my user page, and from the fact that I'm far more interested <fnord> How's the renovated Trumbull? </fnord> in debating evolution than discussing Wikipolitics.
Invisible Flying Mangoes 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the situation with Clyde_Wey is one of the poorer cases, however, I still find that blocking users based solemnly on username similarities is bogus. For example: why was one of the following not been blocked User:Lefty, User:Mrlefty, and User:Mr. Lefty (this just an example)? There is even User_talk:Lefty#Question. I understand putting up a message on the user talk page telling them that they will be monitored to make sure the are not imposters or have plans to vandalize pages. However, the current method (note I say method not policy) is just illogical in my opinion. -- Dark Side of the Moon 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 35 | 28 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 August 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 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Hi - maybe you need to edit and clean this up a bit for clarity. Link these names as usernames per the previous note.
thanks, Vsmith 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all I would like to say I appreciate you asking me why I made the edits that I did instead of deleting them earlier. Moving on I will now address each one of your qeuestions in order:
"Hi, may I ask why you've removed Professor X as an example for many powers? JoshuaZ 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
The reason for his removal at my hands was quite simply because there are so many other characters out there with abilities similar to his it just seems terribly redundant to list him numerous times on the same list. Is it truly so terrible to give other comic characters a nod if they fill the same niche? After all, the point of this site I thought was to share knowledge on a vast scale and not to to simply point out the same old cliches and pastiches as examples. I mean no harm, I'm not trying to to step on anyone's toes or be combatative in any way, my only intent is to add a little variety to the examples and give people a broader view of superpower archtypes beyond the usual suspects.
"And why you have decided to change many other superhero examples? JoshuaZ 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
See above.
"I've reverted most of your edits. You edits have almost uniformily replaced more well known heroes with less well known heros and/or have been replacing Marvel with DC characters. Neither an emphasis on obscure characters nor an emphasis on one company's characters is necessary. JoshuaZ 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
I have zero bias against any one company, publisher, mythology or studio. I collect just as much DC as I do Marvel, IDW, Wildstorm, and any other variant or subsidiary of the aforementioned entities. My only consideration to whom I added was simply whether or not the person was a good example for the particular ability. And popularity had nothing to do with it at all seeing as how I added characters such as Lucas Bishop (longtime mainstay with the x-ranks), Cassandra Nova (one the X-Men's most powerful and infamous foes) and Naruto (which, is in fact immensly popular).
Look, the bottom line is, seeing as how you are an administrator, there's not really much I can do if you're not pleased with my editorial changes. I will be honest and say that I find a little baffling as to why the changes would irk you so greatly and I think it somewhat unfair seeing as how this is supposed to be the free encylopedia you can edit. Finally I feel rather disheartened by this encounter because I refrained from editing anything on this site for so long due to the fact that I had an inkling something like this would occur, when all I'm trying to do is help. Well, either way I'll still continue to enjoy the site, but I think I'll refrain from editing.
My apologies for the long post.
Baphometix 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the block, even though I am not in favor of it. I have been having an email conversation with Jimbo regarding this situation, and I regard it as unambiguous that under the present circumstances he intends that this user be blocked. Dragons flight 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to be a smart ass, but I am wondering what special authority does Jimbo have? Which policy can I read about this? HighInBC 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I get a link to that? HighInBC 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That only says he started it, if he has maintained the authority to bypass consensus(and I only have dragon flights word he has insisted because his talk page simple states an opinion), then there should be a policy that states this, I would like a link to that. HighInBC 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going back to editing articles, I am just trying to figure things out, not trying to stir things up. Thanks for the information. HighInBC 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ., thanks for leaving comments on my page. What is the actual controversy about? Whis key Rebel lion 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, thanks for this. [13] I knew, that since you approached the RFarb with a heavy heart, that if you come across any misunderstandings like this you would do the right thing.
The matters we are dealing with (boundaries of science) are complex and often subject to confusion. -- Uncle Ed 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, I have a question. Can you show me where the policy is on templates and their appropriate placement (concerning articles, etc) is? I can't find it. Sorry to bother you again. Thanks. Whis key Rebel lion 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you JoshuaZ for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) — Xyra e l / 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Bleagh Josh, you're no fun. If it wasn't for the little cabal email I don't think anyone would've noticed that for days ... it doesn't seem to be a frequently-traveled portal. -- Cyde Weys 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you participated (briefly) in the Fred Phelps article, where I removed a bunch of content which was based on an unreliable source. As I noticed you're an admin, I'd like your assistance on a similar article. I removed much the same content from the article Westboro Baptist Church, giving a detailed explanation of why on the talk page. User:CovenantD has been reverting my changes over and over, refusing to discuss it on the talk page, and ignoring completely my attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page. Reading further up his talk page, various other people have been complaining of the same thing. (In fact, amusingly enough, I just realized that you are one of the ones who mentioned this. You asked on his talk page for him to discuss with you some issues regarding some reverting/counter reverting you two did on List of comic book superpowers, and it seems he completely ignored you as well). My belief is that simply reverting an article over and over while refusing to discuss it is basically against policy and unacceptable here. If so, I'd appreciate your help on this. -- Xyzzyplugh 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for catching that, you were correct. I am at the worlds slowest internet connection with a crapppy computer, I should just go off-line before I do any more unintended damage! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, that's a good idea. I'll go and look into that page now. — Xyrael / 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear JoshuaZ:
I am not that other user, whoever that other user may be. It just so happens that some other people seem to agree with me. I do agree that matters would be much simpler if everybody stuck to one clearly identifiable username. It was not my intention to suggest that a string of digits is always an improper appellation. Bellbird 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to your statement on the 3rr page. BhaiSaab talk 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
don't quite understand your message on my talk. i'd be happy to talk about it on the jfj page tho. i'd also be *very* appreciative if you at least make a minor denouncement of personal attacks like "crusading liar" on that talk page (but no biggie if you choose not to)
- Justforasecond 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens said it (its still on talk). I won't ask you to say anything about him specifically but I think it would help tone down his rhetoric if someone that agreed with him content-wise reminded everyone to refrain from personal attacks.
I don't think the info I removed belongs there -- why does it matter if Jews for Jesus is incompatible with modern Judaism? We don't have a section in Protestant titled "incompatibility with Catholocism" or on "Christianity" saying "incompatibility with paganism", etc.. Let's just put this on the JFJ page cause its relevant there -- other editors may be interested.
Justforasecond 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for talking to humus.
Justforasecond 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be involved in the matter prior, you may be interested in knowing that the template is in fact used on many articles not just those in the "series" and the word series in the template in fact links to the general Christianity category. JoshuaZ 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Feel free to do what you feel is most proper. I'm having a blast right now carrying out the decision for this whole thing. Yank sox 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Try this on for size. [14] Arbusto 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Could I direct you to masturbation where there was a recently uploaded Image of a male masturbating too. Could you check this out? — The Future 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The consensus reached in Talk:Masturbation through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete what has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible in Talk:Masturbation and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" there at Talk:Masturbation#The_New_Image has become utterly pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on the Masturbation page. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.
User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page.
I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you-- The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. -- The Judge 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This brings me here. Can I help? WAS 4.250 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I answered your question on my page. -- evrik 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind running a check on who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? Of course, I am a little miffed that you assumed I was doing as much; I am not. Other people on both sides of the discussion may be using sockpuppets, however - that is, at least, my (unprovable - by me!) impression. Since you are an admin, I thought you might be able to check. Also - if you do ascertain that I do not have sockpuppets, would you mind withdrawing your statement in the Village Pump? Bellbird 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I will let the requester of the Advocate Case make the call to reopen it since the case was about the Legal threats. Thanks Æon Insanity Now! EA! 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ,
By all means – thanks for your interest – but re your first question ("Could you expand on your response to question 2 above?"), rather than second-guessing what you might like to learn, perhaps you might give me some pointers...? I'll then happily launch into trying to address all your questions. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...As you probably already know, I've now responded to your questions. Yours, David 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...Thanks for your support!
Sorry to miss; having not seen WP:100 before, I wondered whether it did have any significance beyond general endorsement. So – I fell for it! Best wishes, David 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Having had some pepole talk to me ive decided i will be throwing my hat into the adminship ring again at some point in the near future especially as the real life issues that have kept me from wikipedia recently have gone and id be honured for you to be the person to nominate me :D Benon 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks that was a pleasant surprise. You are the first admin to ever unblock me after they blocked me. Either you are a super nice guy, or my grovling and pleading has gotten signifigantly better from all of the practice from the other boots. :)
I am sorry for breaking WP:NPA and WP:Civil, I strongly agree with those pages. In fact I apologized to User:CJK and have repeatedly stated that I should have been blocked, my comments at that time were way over the top.
I just get frustrated at wikiusers using wikipolicy to push their own POV. No one admits it, but almost everyone does it in some form or another. No one will admit that they have no "POV". I have repeatedly clashed with admins in editing articles who know wikipolicy and use wikipolicy to push their POV. In fact, I am in a heated argument with someone like this right now.
My biggest weakness is I speak my mind. You can't do that on wikipedia: you have to learn how to speak your mind diplomatically. I have learned that from veteran editors and admins. If wikieditors would have cracked down on my comments last year, I would no longer be editing wikipedia, I would be booted indefinatly. My comments have mellowed incredibly since then.
I also see incredible hyprocicy in the way certain editors enforce wikipedia policy (not you--just some unnamed editors). They unblock each other. That in no way excuses my words today.
It appears like WP:NPA and WP:Civil are your pet peeves. Mine is WP:AWW
Maybe you can start monitoring Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, we all have been guilty of violating WP:NPA and WP:Civil, especially myself :(. We already have a mediator, but more opinions are welcome and needed. I would total respect and abide by a WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot if you started to monitor this page. (not that I don't respect the WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot today).
Anyway, thanks for unblocking me. I am rambling, again, I told you that I speak my mind. Travb ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know if I am stepping over the line at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine I am being very careful not to even "skirt" WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I will stop editing this page if necessary, or change any edits I make. Travb ( talk) 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joshua, sorry that went to AN/I. I wasn't in on the IRC chat, I just saw the tail end which is why I hit Rory's shutoff button. I got a message about the AN/I, I'll respond there. I was trying to end the stir, not whip it up. Teke ( talk) 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the user. I can definitely see the name being offensive to some people, and the user wasn't going anywhere good. alphaChimp (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the Rory096 situation I posted about on WP:AN/I. After reading all the comments there and on user talk pages, I think I have pieced together what happened. It looked all very strange to me, which is why I posted what I did. -- Gogo Dodo 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant an administrator some leeway- but you will note that I placed a NPOV tag on the page, gave my reasons for it, and solicited differing opinions before making the edits. You haven't responded to the questions raised on the Talk page, which would be appropriate. Gabrielthursday 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 needs to be closed. Arbusto 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
hey joshua
he is actually claiming "all" jewish groups are opposed to j4j, not all major denomniations.
i'm sure you can see the problem with this -- how can you know what "all" x are opposed to, without knowing exactly who x are?
Justforasecond 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
re User talk:12.153.197.126, sorry to confuse you - my fault. I thought I had edited the wrong page, but I hadn't, and then I did, and then you arrived before I could fix it! my bad. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you closed the delete debate on the Trissanju articles, however only one of the pages has this far been deleted. Was this an oversight or intentional? Shiroi Hane 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
When you're leaving nice talk page messages I hit the block button. You think that blanking IP was block-ready yet... they fit bot block criteria -- Tawker 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As much as I would have resented doing this back in August, I have come here to offer my appreciation for your request for comment regarding my situation last month. Since that time, I have taken a semi–permanent wikibreak and have not made any edits since 22 August before today. I have returned only temporarily for a "birthday treat" (it is my 18th) and wanted to offer my thanks for your "waking me up" to being a better contributor by enlisting the RfC. If I ever do again return on a more permanent basis, I can assure you that my edits will be tenfold more productive. I also appreciate your attempts to delist my RfC after my contributions improved. I have addressed my situation with Wikipedia at my talk page, and wish you a productive editing future. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Its been gettin repeatedly hit over the last few days by a range of IPs. Arbusto 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for closing that; it was turning into a real nightmare. Do you think somebody could have a look at the actions of some of the socks? It was a thoroughly disgusting discussion. - No more bongos 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this really frustrating Balfouria situation. I have never seen someone so obsessed with vandalizing one page that he is willing to hold ransom so many others. It is through the hard work of editors like yourself that Wikipedia miraculously keeps vandalism to a minimum. nadav 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this "האימ אתה לא יכול לעשות משהו די טוב" close to correct? JoshuaZ 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the article. Yeah, I thought most of the edits werent really for the best. nadav 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting. I am not sure what I did to deserve this... - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
News and notes | Features and admins |
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, and thanks for the feedback regarding the 3RR page, and sorry if I got a bit anxious. Point taken on the weasel words. Good wiking, Mariano( t/ c) 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries. :) Thank you for providing an analysis of the claimed wheel war. Do you think you'll be attending the MfD? I never know what to wear to these things... - GTBacchus( talk) 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your change to faith healing because I'm not sure that your wording was in a NPOV. If you disagree, mind discussing on the Talk:Faith healing page? No offense intended, just trying to keep a touchy subject at a somewhat neutral stance.
Unrelated, your talk page needs an archive :)
-- BillWeiss | Talk 03:51, 13 September 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
While he may have certain privelidges as a representative of the foundation, he does not have the right to abuse those privelidges to further the cause of a personal gripe. Removing comments is a controversial act at the best of times, but a representative of the foundation removing them because they ask questions that he doesn't want people asking is outrageous. My aim is to resolve the issue diplomatically, and through the rules established here on Wikipedia - while he may be able to circumvent these rules somewhat, that doesn't mean it's good or constructive to do so, especially not in this case. -- Badharlick 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block for User:CrazyInSane. I find nothing in what you have written there, the diffs you supplied at WP:AN/I, or in his recent contribution history to justify any block and certianly not an indefinite block. I am concerned at your apparent lack of discussion with the user prior to blocking. It is normal to warn people and to proceed through an escalation of warnings - at the very least from {{ blatantvandal}} to blocked. You do that before going to WP:AN/I. Can you please explain to me what it is that exhausted the community's patience.-- A Y Arktos\ talk 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You said: "More to the point- Wikipedia does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"
This is not true for technical areas, which is where my confusion comes from. e.g., From uric acid "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can...." Pproctor 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope the inevitable kickback is not getting to you. I said I'd post the gory details, I did that at User:JzG/Laura, I think you saw. I'm now moving house. I shall do my best not to get divorced, two out of the three top stress producers is probably enough... Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ. Thank you for your questions. Before I answer them, could you please clarify question #3? Thanks. G. H e 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Er yes. I'm not sure what I was trying to say there. I've removed it. JoshuaZ 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Your questions are now answered and are available on my RfA page. G. H e 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello again Joshua, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm truly glad I recieved your approval—your pragmatic approach to conflicts and your careful analysis of RFAs, AFDs, etc. has changed the way I approach things on wikipedia. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.
|
There has been considerable back and forth edits removing and adding the NPOV tag. I believe it should stay for reasons I've stated on the talk page. the most vocal hoax theorist keeps reverting it claiming that my reasons given for adding the tag are not valid. I don't want to run afoul of edit or revert war, but lack the wiki-experience that would allow me to move forward if that is possible. It may be the that hoax theorist editor is intractable. They certainly don't seem to engage appropriately in the discussion on the talk page -- i.e personal attacks, failure to AGF, blatent POV edits, etc. Please advise. Numskll 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, in your discussion with new user Schlafly, your responded to him in a decidedly unhelpful way. Specifically, you begged the question and changed the subject, when he criticized the ID articles for bias. When someone explains what is wrong with an article, it's not helpful to say, "Anyway, the article is pretty good overall." We should help him fix it! -- Uncle Ed 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the light side of the Force. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra info on the Bulgarian music scene. In view of that, I have now changed my vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waste_of_time#.5B.5BWaste_of_time.5D.5D to a delete. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read a) the article? b) the AFD?
It was spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, glorious spam. It was also a vanity article, for a non-notable company, and it was also a neologism that the non-notable company had invented to promote itself in its own spam.
Enough for you? DS 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks
Thanks for getting onto that. I was going at full speed with three screens open and I couldn't keep up with him! - Richardcavell 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
At User talk:Aussie pingu you gave a last warning for vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism, but who first contributed an article on St Francis of Assisi Primary School which appeared innocuous but not notable. I've flagged it for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good work, .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A problem of vandalism in Harun Yahya page is going on. Need your atttention. Please. Jitt 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for rewarding Jitt's request. Jeff5102 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll withdraw it now; next time maybe you could nominate me! -- TheM62Manchester 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just notifying you of the expired block and that if you are going to make a RfC for my username I am ready to respond. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
for the comment on WP:AN - I laughed quite immoderately :-D Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that page, good to know there wasn't some grand mistake I'm just forgetting about. I wouldn't mind seeing what it was there, if you'd email it to me. I believe my email link should be turned on (though it's seemed to turn itself back off randomly in the past). - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I already have: [3] Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[4] Thanks! -- Durin 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I did find the message in question in the users talk page about the vandalism. I also feel certain activity posts were too low, and should have been made before attempting to become admin. My oppose vote still continues to stand. -- Masssiveego 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You and I have never interacted, or at least never on a significant level, which is why I am asking you for assistance. I am tired. I want to leave, but not with bullshit on my talkpage. JzG has protected my talkpage and altered a disclaimer I put up, along with deleting the comments of several users he doesnt like. He has made clear, both through his edit summaries and ongoing harassment that he wishes me to leave. As a compromise, I will leave if the disclaimer he posted on my talkpage is removed and replaced with: "I am no longer editing under this account." Nothing more than that, and nothing less. Then I'll leave. For Good. Tchadienne 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please consider extending his block for a further 48 hours for personal attacks on JzG made on his talk page. I'm sure JzG feels he can't do this himself. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
48 hours is not long enough. No one would protest indef. JBKramer 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You just gave a 24 hour block to an AOL IP, and like most AOL blocks, there's no sign of vandalism, and the blocking summary doesn't make any sense, so unless this involves some sort of situation with deleted pages, that may be hiding vandalistic edits, I'd like to ask that the block be lifted so that I can continue to comment about dark matter-- 152.163.100.137 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ. Thanks for replying to that creationist on my talk page. I was a little snowed under with work, so was grateful for the intervention. Not that it did a lot of good. The whole exchange reminded me, again, that most of the time there's really no arguing with these people. It's just not possible to make any headway. Still, always worth trying, since you never know when you might make a difference. Cheers, -- Plumbago 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, your repeated removal of Evolution and reference from Pseudoscience appears to be vandalism. I have explained in edit summaries how this entry meets the criterion for the list in the article. The criterion states (currently) that the items listed have critics that state that part or all of an item listed has elements of pseudoscience. I realize that your POV may be contrary to some of these critics, but as a Wikipedia administrator, I would have thought you would know better than to censor such criticism. ross nixon 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for this: [5] -- Uncle Ed 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw my page linked to User:Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas where you accused me of being a sockpuppet.
The conclusion is your socketpuppet accusation is nothing but a clueless racist and abusive accusation based on the clueless "best guess" of another racist and abusive editor. Shame on you! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And I'd bet you're right, too -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This guy is frantically appealing his block. For reasons I've given on his talk page, my sockpuppet sense is tingling, and I wonder if you have any further evidence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My email should now be verified. -- Davril2020 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
About your corrections of my definition of Flying Spaghetti Monster
Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parodic religion! so obvious , but parodic it´s an adjective ,not a definition.
I think the main goal of this "religion" its that ultra religious people start to think more criticism about her/his own religions.
And to do that, you must put on the same level.
So, the definition "religion" as is, its quite accurate.
P.D:
What its parodic? a man walking over the sea?
Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no difference.
Sorry to butt in, in your statement I think you meant RfArb, not RfA. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
Er, yes. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are feeling fine. I have answered your question in my RfA to the best of my ability. Hope that my answer proves to be satisfactory to you. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You had written in part: "unsourced POV and not relevant to the matter at hand." What would be recognized by you as "sourced POV and relevant to the matter at hand?" Awinger48 14:47 EST, 17 August 2006.
User:FeloniousMonk removed what you authorized me to add as a revision saying, "(rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ). I put the addition back in. I added an explanation at User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Authorized_Revision_of_Dominionism_Entry referring him back to this talk session with you. I also added an explanation to the Dominionism discussion page at Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches. -- Awinger48 13:28, 18 August 2006. (UTC)
I wondered if you'd noticed my suggestion. I think it could be useful if he was asked about some specific basic aspects, which he might be expected to know at this point, if you wished to pursue your initial doubts. Tyrenius 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I presume your conclusions will appear on the RfA. Tyrenius 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? I've been blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system" by following policy and posting my 4th revert just outside the 24 hour. Yet Netscott gets away with going against a consensus and reverting 5 times in 8 hours!
Why? Can someone explain this? Deuterium 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be a good faith edit, but I could have sworn I used the rollback option, and not a warning. 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)~
You know you've got User:PinchasC [8] and User:Bishonen [9] suggesting Deuterium ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs blocking with you being the only dissenting voice. Would you kindly take steps in accord with others? ( → Netscott) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. No problem. -- Szvest 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have missed your message. Perhaps there was some kind of problem with my Gmail account while I was away; it's working fine now so you may want to resend (or feel free to use my talk page).
Thanks,
AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your comment on iav. He violated 3RR, repeatedly removing speedy tags every few minutes. I reported him only a few minutes after his third removal of the tag, how is that not doing anything?-- Crossmr 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not fun, but contentious. See the latest stuff to delete bio of Roberta Wenocur. They wiped out bio on Elaine Zanutto. Maybe I will stop contributing. Is this a power trip for some people? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as a "good deed", but it seems to be "Truthiness" -- Truth by Democracy, with an in-crowd of power-hungry people with a lot of time on their hands. You were fair, but many are not. I suspect gender bias, also, among many. MathStatWoman 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, thanks for your "prepublication" feedback at the RFarb. [10]
I should have made it clear that what YECs reject is not the existence of the fossil record but its authenticity. Real scientists (like geologists and biologists) all agree (1) that fossils show actual animals and plants that lived long ago and (2) that carbon dating shows that they lived much, much longer than 10,000 years ago.
YECs might concede the first point, but they vigorously reject the second point, right? -- Uncle Ed 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone should work on Julia Robinson's bio, but Constance Reid is not really a mathematician, but a biographer.
But if living mathematicians and scientists are not to be included even if their work has led to something like restoring hearing, then the male mathematician's bios should be deleted, too, to be consistent and fair: Herbert Wilf, John Allen Paulos, etc. However, I think that is not the way to go. More info, not less, seems good, doesn't it? Instead we keep all of these bios and keep improving them: men and women alike. MathStatWoman 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JzG semi-protected a page from clear vandalism, and that semi-protection was pulled off by a new user who has only made edits at that article. I think the anon. IP and that user are the same. Diana Irey is currently a candiate int he 2006 elections. C56C 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take back your comment about edit warring. You yourself made the suggestion that one of my edits (which another person reverted) should go back with the following phrasing:
Or don't take it back. I'll just use it in Evidence as one more example of a false accusation, easily disprovable by diff's. I will ask, "How can it be edit warring if the very change I made is approved by the person who accuses me of edit warring?" -- Uncle Ed 16:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
...For cleaning up vandalism on my userpage! HawkerTyphoon 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
None of the sources brought, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm , deal with the accusation that kosher slaughter is banned in these countries because of anti-Semitism. People keep reading the article, and saying "wait a minute, the ban was to protect animals from inhumane treatment, not because of anti-Semitism. I need to go and balance the article there, because the other side of the argument hasn't been shown". The problem is, they keep making up "the other argument", they don't quote someone else making it. What they need is a good source saying "however, the proponents of the ban insist their actions are not anti-Semitic, but rather simply to protect animals from unnecessary pain etc." The WP:NOR policy is quite clear; it specifically excludes material if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Moreover, it states that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. The argument FCYTravis is making has not been made by a reputable source, it has been made by FCYTravis. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I added my two cents....I'm also thinking we should archive the old "definition of deaths in humans" threads, so that we don't have people commenting in the wrong place. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.
If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.
If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.
BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
John McGinness says:
I was quite upset to learn of the outrageous mischaracterization in this edit by Rod Ball ( talk · contribs), not only of what I know, have read, and have done at Wikipedia, but of what I myself told him about what I have read.
Can I ask you to revisit and verify one relevant point? You mentioned in your comment the inadequate citations offered in the current version of Bell's spaceship paradox. The reason for this lack is that in the course of lengthy edit wars with numerous other users including myself, Rod Ball removed the citations I had added to my much earlier and much more carefully crafted version, which you can see here. As you can see, I was careful to include judiciously chosen citations both to the mainstream and to dissident viewpoints.
As I say in my statement, Rod Ball's outrageous misrepresentations and refusal to accept even mathematical proof that he is wrong eventually led me to abandon my efforts to add content to the Wikipedia, which I count as just one of his sins, although perhaps not the least. It has been very upsetting to find out that in my absence he has been so outrageously misrepresenting my own efforts, not least because I spent so much time trying to carefully explain to him my views and the reasoning process by which I had arrived at them.--- CH 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then what the hell is he doing? The comments are just wrong. •Jim62sch• 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs |
It seems that there are some users in Wikipedia not eligible to the general rules [12]-- Nixer 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
He just does not seem to give up. He takes every edit I do at Pluto as a revert, when my last edit was so minor it didn't even change the page length. Ryūlóng 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You're an admin who's opinion I respect, since you helped me out with the trouble I had with Netscott. Some users, including admin Jayjg, are trying to delete an article written by me, Israel-South Africa relations, because it's a "POV fork" of Foreign relations of Israel.
I think this is really unfair because the article is extremely well sourced and balanced, Foreign relations of Israel is already quite large and there are many similar spin-off articles such as Israel-Venezuela relations. What do you think? Deuterium 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AHolywarrior&diff=72161636&oldid=72033047
I was wondering if this can be construed as a violation of
WP:Civil or
WP:NPA.Thank you very much.
Hkelkar
11:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I see indeed only the three reversions by User:Holywarrior. And the statement "rv,even 3RR does not apply in such a case" doesn't claim the 3RR doesn't apply to him, but refers to WP:BLP. It is arguable whether WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material in fact applies, but I wouldn't consider it bad faith. -- Pjacobi 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the 3RR does apply in this case, but the four reverts (edit nr. 5 is does not revert to the same version, but to a compromise suggestion by Hkelkar) are spread over more than 24 hours. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours, which are not technically a 3RRvio. Please be more careful before blocking, I do suggest you unblock the user, or at least shorten the block to 12 hours as a warning to not game the 3RR (which is not the same as straightforwardly violating it). (ᛎ) qɐp 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with dab. Holywarrior deserved every minute of the 25 hours he got. Bakaman Bakatalk 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a highly misleading comment put up by joshua on my talk page.There are other too, but let me sort out this one first.
Holy|
Warrior
15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::: I am closing this matter from my side and expect the same from others too.Thanks for unblocking though Holywarrior 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get work work on them right away. — Xyra e l / 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what happened there - never heard of that user, his name just seemed to appear at the start of my post. The 64.12.XXX.XX AOL guy has to be a bot. -- Charlesknight 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support (and the first, at that) of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk) 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Josh,
I'd like your opinion of this relatively moderate articulation of intelligent design; could you point out some of its weaknesses?
"The question 'why has the trend of evolution been upwards?' is not in the least explained by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. That doctrine explains only why some kinds of organisms, having emerged, manage to survive. If survival were the only goal, however, then the very emergence of living things would be inexplicable: life itself is comparatively deficient in survival value, since the art of persistence is to be dead. What we unhesitatingly call the higher organisms, furthermore, are even less capable of survival than lower ones: otters, whales, and humans are transient species compared with viruses, bacteria, and even beetles. The problem <fnord> OK, so there's no Wikipedia article here, per se </fnord> set by the doctrine of evolution is to explain how complex organism with such deficient survival power ever evolved. One answer would be the rejection of the 'evolutionist fallacy', which assumes that fitness for sruvival is identical with the best exemplification of the Art of Life. The point is that the evloutionary process is driven by some criterion other than mere survival, this criterion being 'increase in satisfaction', that is, increase in the realization of intrinsic value. The existence of this criterion provides another reason to regard our world as created by a divine power."
The quote is from a book by David Ray Griffen, a contemporary exponent of 'process philosophy' and 'naturalistic theism'.
As for who I am, you should be able to figure it out from my user page, and from the fact that I'm far more interested <fnord> How's the renovated Trumbull? </fnord> in debating evolution than discussing Wikipolitics.
Invisible Flying Mangoes 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the situation with Clyde_Wey is one of the poorer cases, however, I still find that blocking users based solemnly on username similarities is bogus. For example: why was one of the following not been blocked User:Lefty, User:Mrlefty, and User:Mr. Lefty (this just an example)? There is even User_talk:Lefty#Question. I understand putting up a message on the user talk page telling them that they will be monitored to make sure the are not imposters or have plans to vandalize pages. However, the current method (note I say method not policy) is just illogical in my opinion. -- Dark Side of the Moon 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 35 | 28 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 August 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 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Hi - maybe you need to edit and clean this up a bit for clarity. Link these names as usernames per the previous note.
thanks, Vsmith 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all I would like to say I appreciate you asking me why I made the edits that I did instead of deleting them earlier. Moving on I will now address each one of your qeuestions in order:
"Hi, may I ask why you've removed Professor X as an example for many powers? JoshuaZ 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
The reason for his removal at my hands was quite simply because there are so many other characters out there with abilities similar to his it just seems terribly redundant to list him numerous times on the same list. Is it truly so terrible to give other comic characters a nod if they fill the same niche? After all, the point of this site I thought was to share knowledge on a vast scale and not to to simply point out the same old cliches and pastiches as examples. I mean no harm, I'm not trying to to step on anyone's toes or be combatative in any way, my only intent is to add a little variety to the examples and give people a broader view of superpower archtypes beyond the usual suspects.
"And why you have decided to change many other superhero examples? JoshuaZ 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
See above.
"I've reverted most of your edits. You edits have almost uniformily replaced more well known heroes with less well known heros and/or have been replacing Marvel with DC characters. Neither an emphasis on obscure characters nor an emphasis on one company's characters is necessary. JoshuaZ 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)"
I have zero bias against any one company, publisher, mythology or studio. I collect just as much DC as I do Marvel, IDW, Wildstorm, and any other variant or subsidiary of the aforementioned entities. My only consideration to whom I added was simply whether or not the person was a good example for the particular ability. And popularity had nothing to do with it at all seeing as how I added characters such as Lucas Bishop (longtime mainstay with the x-ranks), Cassandra Nova (one the X-Men's most powerful and infamous foes) and Naruto (which, is in fact immensly popular).
Look, the bottom line is, seeing as how you are an administrator, there's not really much I can do if you're not pleased with my editorial changes. I will be honest and say that I find a little baffling as to why the changes would irk you so greatly and I think it somewhat unfair seeing as how this is supposed to be the free encylopedia you can edit. Finally I feel rather disheartened by this encounter because I refrained from editing anything on this site for so long due to the fact that I had an inkling something like this would occur, when all I'm trying to do is help. Well, either way I'll still continue to enjoy the site, but I think I'll refrain from editing.
My apologies for the long post.
Baphometix 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the block, even though I am not in favor of it. I have been having an email conversation with Jimbo regarding this situation, and I regard it as unambiguous that under the present circumstances he intends that this user be blocked. Dragons flight 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to be a smart ass, but I am wondering what special authority does Jimbo have? Which policy can I read about this? HighInBC 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I get a link to that? HighInBC 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That only says he started it, if he has maintained the authority to bypass consensus(and I only have dragon flights word he has insisted because his talk page simple states an opinion), then there should be a policy that states this, I would like a link to that. HighInBC 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going back to editing articles, I am just trying to figure things out, not trying to stir things up. Thanks for the information. HighInBC 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ., thanks for leaving comments on my page. What is the actual controversy about? Whis key Rebel lion 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, thanks for this. [13] I knew, that since you approached the RFarb with a heavy heart, that if you come across any misunderstandings like this you would do the right thing.
The matters we are dealing with (boundaries of science) are complex and often subject to confusion. -- Uncle Ed 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, I have a question. Can you show me where the policy is on templates and their appropriate placement (concerning articles, etc) is? I can't find it. Sorry to bother you again. Thanks. Whis key Rebel lion 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you JoshuaZ for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) — Xyra e l / 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Bleagh Josh, you're no fun. If it wasn't for the little cabal email I don't think anyone would've noticed that for days ... it doesn't seem to be a frequently-traveled portal. -- Cyde Weys 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you participated (briefly) in the Fred Phelps article, where I removed a bunch of content which was based on an unreliable source. As I noticed you're an admin, I'd like your assistance on a similar article. I removed much the same content from the article Westboro Baptist Church, giving a detailed explanation of why on the talk page. User:CovenantD has been reverting my changes over and over, refusing to discuss it on the talk page, and ignoring completely my attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page. Reading further up his talk page, various other people have been complaining of the same thing. (In fact, amusingly enough, I just realized that you are one of the ones who mentioned this. You asked on his talk page for him to discuss with you some issues regarding some reverting/counter reverting you two did on List of comic book superpowers, and it seems he completely ignored you as well). My belief is that simply reverting an article over and over while refusing to discuss it is basically against policy and unacceptable here. If so, I'd appreciate your help on this. -- Xyzzyplugh 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for catching that, you were correct. I am at the worlds slowest internet connection with a crapppy computer, I should just go off-line before I do any more unintended damage! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, that's a good idea. I'll go and look into that page now. — Xyrael / 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear JoshuaZ:
I am not that other user, whoever that other user may be. It just so happens that some other people seem to agree with me. I do agree that matters would be much simpler if everybody stuck to one clearly identifiable username. It was not my intention to suggest that a string of digits is always an improper appellation. Bellbird 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to your statement on the 3rr page. BhaiSaab talk 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
don't quite understand your message on my talk. i'd be happy to talk about it on the jfj page tho. i'd also be *very* appreciative if you at least make a minor denouncement of personal attacks like "crusading liar" on that talk page (but no biggie if you choose not to)
- Justforasecond 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens said it (its still on talk). I won't ask you to say anything about him specifically but I think it would help tone down his rhetoric if someone that agreed with him content-wise reminded everyone to refrain from personal attacks.
I don't think the info I removed belongs there -- why does it matter if Jews for Jesus is incompatible with modern Judaism? We don't have a section in Protestant titled "incompatibility with Catholocism" or on "Christianity" saying "incompatibility with paganism", etc.. Let's just put this on the JFJ page cause its relevant there -- other editors may be interested.
Justforasecond 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for talking to humus.
Justforasecond 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be involved in the matter prior, you may be interested in knowing that the template is in fact used on many articles not just those in the "series" and the word series in the template in fact links to the general Christianity category. JoshuaZ 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Feel free to do what you feel is most proper. I'm having a blast right now carrying out the decision for this whole thing. Yank sox 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Try this on for size. [14] Arbusto 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Could I direct you to masturbation where there was a recently uploaded Image of a male masturbating too. Could you check this out? — The Future 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The consensus reached in Talk:Masturbation through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete what has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible in Talk:Masturbation and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" there at Talk:Masturbation#The_New_Image has become utterly pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on the Masturbation page. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.
User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page.
I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you-- The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. -- The Judge 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This brings me here. Can I help? WAS 4.250 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I answered your question on my page. -- evrik 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind running a check on who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? Of course, I am a little miffed that you assumed I was doing as much; I am not. Other people on both sides of the discussion may be using sockpuppets, however - that is, at least, my (unprovable - by me!) impression. Since you are an admin, I thought you might be able to check. Also - if you do ascertain that I do not have sockpuppets, would you mind withdrawing your statement in the Village Pump? Bellbird 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I will let the requester of the Advocate Case make the call to reopen it since the case was about the Legal threats. Thanks Æon Insanity Now! EA! 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ,
By all means – thanks for your interest – but re your first question ("Could you expand on your response to question 2 above?"), rather than second-guessing what you might like to learn, perhaps you might give me some pointers...? I'll then happily launch into trying to address all your questions. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...As you probably already know, I've now responded to your questions. Yours, David 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...Thanks for your support!
Sorry to miss; having not seen WP:100 before, I wondered whether it did have any significance beyond general endorsement. So – I fell for it! Best wishes, David 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Having had some pepole talk to me ive decided i will be throwing my hat into the adminship ring again at some point in the near future especially as the real life issues that have kept me from wikipedia recently have gone and id be honured for you to be the person to nominate me :D Benon 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks that was a pleasant surprise. You are the first admin to ever unblock me after they blocked me. Either you are a super nice guy, or my grovling and pleading has gotten signifigantly better from all of the practice from the other boots. :)
I am sorry for breaking WP:NPA and WP:Civil, I strongly agree with those pages. In fact I apologized to User:CJK and have repeatedly stated that I should have been blocked, my comments at that time were way over the top.
I just get frustrated at wikiusers using wikipolicy to push their own POV. No one admits it, but almost everyone does it in some form or another. No one will admit that they have no "POV". I have repeatedly clashed with admins in editing articles who know wikipolicy and use wikipolicy to push their POV. In fact, I am in a heated argument with someone like this right now.
My biggest weakness is I speak my mind. You can't do that on wikipedia: you have to learn how to speak your mind diplomatically. I have learned that from veteran editors and admins. If wikieditors would have cracked down on my comments last year, I would no longer be editing wikipedia, I would be booted indefinatly. My comments have mellowed incredibly since then.
I also see incredible hyprocicy in the way certain editors enforce wikipedia policy (not you--just some unnamed editors). They unblock each other. That in no way excuses my words today.
It appears like WP:NPA and WP:Civil are your pet peeves. Mine is WP:AWW
Maybe you can start monitoring Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, we all have been guilty of violating WP:NPA and WP:Civil, especially myself :(. We already have a mediator, but more opinions are welcome and needed. I would total respect and abide by a WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot if you started to monitor this page. (not that I don't respect the WP:NPA and WP:Civil boot today).
Anyway, thanks for unblocking me. I am rambling, again, I told you that I speak my mind. Travb ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know if I am stepping over the line at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine I am being very careful not to even "skirt" WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I will stop editing this page if necessary, or change any edits I make. Travb ( talk) 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joshua, sorry that went to AN/I. I wasn't in on the IRC chat, I just saw the tail end which is why I hit Rory's shutoff button. I got a message about the AN/I, I'll respond there. I was trying to end the stir, not whip it up. Teke ( talk) 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the user. I can definitely see the name being offensive to some people, and the user wasn't going anywhere good. alphaChimp (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the Rory096 situation I posted about on WP:AN/I. After reading all the comments there and on user talk pages, I think I have pieced together what happened. It looked all very strange to me, which is why I posted what I did. -- Gogo Dodo 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant an administrator some leeway- but you will note that I placed a NPOV tag on the page, gave my reasons for it, and solicited differing opinions before making the edits. You haven't responded to the questions raised on the Talk page, which would be appropriate. Gabrielthursday 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 needs to be closed. Arbusto 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
hey joshua
he is actually claiming "all" jewish groups are opposed to j4j, not all major denomniations.
i'm sure you can see the problem with this -- how can you know what "all" x are opposed to, without knowing exactly who x are?
Justforasecond 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
re User talk:12.153.197.126, sorry to confuse you - my fault. I thought I had edited the wrong page, but I hadn't, and then I did, and then you arrived before I could fix it! my bad. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you closed the delete debate on the Trissanju articles, however only one of the pages has this far been deleted. Was this an oversight or intentional? Shiroi Hane 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
When you're leaving nice talk page messages I hit the block button. You think that blanking IP was block-ready yet... they fit bot block criteria -- Tawker 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As much as I would have resented doing this back in August, I have come here to offer my appreciation for your request for comment regarding my situation last month. Since that time, I have taken a semi–permanent wikibreak and have not made any edits since 22 August before today. I have returned only temporarily for a "birthday treat" (it is my 18th) and wanted to offer my thanks for your "waking me up" to being a better contributor by enlisting the RfC. If I ever do again return on a more permanent basis, I can assure you that my edits will be tenfold more productive. I also appreciate your attempts to delist my RfC after my contributions improved. I have addressed my situation with Wikipedia at my talk page, and wish you a productive editing future. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` [discl.] 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Its been gettin repeatedly hit over the last few days by a range of IPs. Arbusto 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for closing that; it was turning into a real nightmare. Do you think somebody could have a look at the actions of some of the socks? It was a thoroughly disgusting discussion. - No more bongos 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this really frustrating Balfouria situation. I have never seen someone so obsessed with vandalizing one page that he is willing to hold ransom so many others. It is through the hard work of editors like yourself that Wikipedia miraculously keeps vandalism to a minimum. nadav 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this "האימ אתה לא יכול לעשות משהו די טוב" close to correct? JoshuaZ 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the article. Yeah, I thought most of the edits werent really for the best. nadav 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting. I am not sure what I did to deserve this... - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
News and notes | Features and admins |
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, and thanks for the feedback regarding the 3RR page, and sorry if I got a bit anxious. Point taken on the weasel words. Good wiking, Mariano( t/ c) 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries. :) Thank you for providing an analysis of the claimed wheel war. Do you think you'll be attending the MfD? I never know what to wear to these things... - GTBacchus( talk) 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your change to faith healing because I'm not sure that your wording was in a NPOV. If you disagree, mind discussing on the Talk:Faith healing page? No offense intended, just trying to keep a touchy subject at a somewhat neutral stance.
Unrelated, your talk page needs an archive :)
-- BillWeiss | Talk 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)