User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

edit warring on memri page

Hi, I commented above about the problems on the MEMRI page. When you unblocked me you warned me not to edit war, so I won't, but I wonder if that warning applies to the two users who have been edit warring as well - Armon (talk · contribs) and Isarig (talk · contribs). Isarig just reverted my last change to the page with the statement "see talk," but he has not contributed to talk in a while, and I have answered all his arguments there. As I noted above, I think the two of them are ganging up on me, reverting my edits on principle more because it is me than because they actually disagree with me. Isarig is the one who reported me for the 3RR using deceptive summaries of my edits to make it look like a 3RR violation had occurred when it really hadn't. I'm not saying my behavior is angelic here - I was definitely reverting also - but I don't know what to do in a situation when I have been warned not to revert and they can do so with impunity. I'd really like them to just leave me alone, to be frank. I understand there will always be reasonable content disputes, but in this case they are just wrong -- they are including WP:NOR and removing sourced and relevant content that has been clearly explained in talk. As I announced in my last message on the talk page for that article, I do not want to continue an endless debate with them when they do not appear to be arguing in good faith -- instead of responding to my arguments they simply repeat theirs or they shout "non-responsive" and then they revert my change. Anyway, I'm contacting you about this since you said above you'd be watching that page for my behhavior; I'm hoping it's not just my behavior that is under scrutiny here. csloat 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to go now but will look at this in more detail tonight. JoshuaZ 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? I'd like to revert the change, but since you have warned me I am refraining. In the meantime, Armon made some extremely tendentious changes to the Juan Cole article. I protested them in talk, of course, but I think they should be changed back (indeed, I believe he is baiting me to revert so he can complain about allegedly "disruptive" editing). Frankly I believe it is him and Isarig who are being disruptive. What can I do at this point? I am afraid to revert anything, even blatantly obvious POV-pushing like Armon's latest changes to the Juan Cole article. csloat 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

One more update: Armon has reverted me again on the Juan Cole page, this time deleting NPOV warning tags that were placed there in good faith pending discussion of the contents of the disputed sections, and he removed the tags before the content disputes had been in any way settled. One of the warnings I placed there earlier tonight in lieu of reverting his extremely tendentious edit that I linked above -- I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place; I can't revert him, so I add the tag, then he removes the tag, so I have to revert him if I want the tag to stay. And on the MEMRI page, he engaged in another revert, again removing sourced content, claiming that he wants to rewrite it. (He has been pushing for eliminating it completely in the past, and he even revert warred over doing so to the point that the page had to be locked). His edit summary was deceptive (as is typical of him), claiming he wrote the passage, when all he did was change the passage to include disputed content (in particular WP:OR) and to eliminate sourced quotations that he didn't like. Earlier you warned Armon not to take your actions as a license to revert war, but he seems to be doing exactly that. csloat 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting sick of sloat's constant trolling. I request that you reinstate his block. <<-armon->> 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW -the one I "wrote" was the version I put in here. Sure, I can't claim it was all mine in a collaborative editing environment where I based it partly on this, but I shorthand call it what I "wrote" and here he is making specious claims about my deceptiveness. He might have also pointed out that I also withdrew it after he was revert-warring between it and what's unilaterally "his version". As for the rest of his claims, he seems to think that he is the only other editor on WP who can revert or edit if my edits are so objectionable. <<-armon->> 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, ok. Guys both of you please calm down. I'm very close to protecting the Memri and the Juan Cole pages until a compromise is reached. I'm not happy with how either of you are behaving although Sloat has been clearly behaving in much more problematic fashion (Sloat- accusing other editors of being deceptive for an edit that looks good faith is unacceptable, Armon - accusations that Sloat is trolling seem both inaccurate and unproductive). Have you guys considered going to mediation or filing an RfC on the articles? (It might help also if one the talk page or a sub-talk page, you both presented drafts of your versions of the contentious sections in toto, which would help organize this a lot more). As to the wipe off the map comment, I'm not sure I'm happy with either version. While Armon's version is shorter and thus more reasonable, it isn't clear to me a priori that the blogs cited are notable enough for inclusion. In general, blog wars are not notable unless noted by non-blog sources. JoshuaZ 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse him of being deceptive for his edit; I accused him of being deceptive for claiming that he looked everywhere for WP:RS's mentioning the issue when me and another editor had already cited several in the discussion above. It is strange that you would say that my behavior is more problematic when I specifically held back from reverting Armon's extremely tendentious changes - e.g. above on the Juan Cole page. (Armon also made several reverts yesterday in spite of you specifically asking him not to revert war). I ask you to review the material again. I'm also really confused by your claim that Armon's version of the Juan Cole edit is "more reasonable"; you think it is reasonable in a WP:BLP to claim that one author called another author a drunk and a thief when there are obviously more substantive arguments being made? You are right that the blog war is not the issue in that bit since the NYT and other WP:RSs discussed the substantive arguments (and not the name-calling). Anyway I am happy to go to mediation with this, or ArbCom, or wherever else would be possible to resolve these issues in a productive manner. csloat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said from the outset, it's your call not to block, but the content disputes are not the point and I've made my case on the article talk. You tell sloat that his behavior is unacceptable, yet he continues to argue, denies that his behavior is in any way problematic, and simply engages in WP:POT. This is not new but has been an ongoing problem for almost a year. If this sort of behaviour had been quashed in the first place, with blocks as necessary, I think he would have got the message and arbcom would be unnecessary. As it is, mediation has failed, and sloat skirts sanctions by remaining just plausibly within community standards. <<-armon->> 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that Armon is the one who is engaged in WP:POT. He is the one whose behavior is problematic, as I have shown over and over. Instead of discussing the issues he simply claims I have been a problem for a year and urges you to block me. All I ask is that you pay attention to what has been going on and make your own decisions about it. csloat 12:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. <<-armon->> 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point being what Armon? That I called you on your objectionable actions? csloat 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bridge to T

The only problem with the movie itself being a reference for that part of the plot summary is that it's not yet released (although presumably the question becomes academic tomorrow). - Cafemusique 01:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Peruvian activists

I have replied to your comment on the AfD page. Out of curiousity, does this also mean that whenever articles are merged, the resulting redirect page should never be deleted? Cheers, Black Falcon 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it is a consequence of the attribution rules on the GFDL. See WP:MERGE. (This is one reason some of the other Wikimedia projects don't use the GFDL liscence but use more flexible ones). JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If it would make things easier, I could simply revert List of Latin American Jews to the old version and redo any changes that have been done since then (it should only take 2 or 3 minutes). However, as I've noted in the AfD, I don't have a preference either way as to whether the nominated lists are deleted or turned into redirects. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the congrats and the support on the RFA, and especially the nom! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MY GOD, LISTEN TO YOURSELF! You are threatening to ban a longstanding contributor because he has criticized your cohort! Can't you see that this is wrong!?

Zoe had to go, and that is not a personal attack, but fact. Her reprehensible conduct was antithetical to free speech and undermined the very purpose of this site: the democratization of public information.

You must understand that the concentration of power into the hands of a few administrators over an organization originally dedicated to open discourse and conversation is a bad thing. Please, tell me you understand that?

The fact that users, much like yourself and very certainly like Zoe (she was the personification of such disgusting aggression and bullying) casually ban editors with whom they have disagreements, that they randomly delete articles (often with no debate whatsoever) because they find them distasteful, that they threaten editors who dare challenge their bellicose absurdity, is not a good thing.

The user Mongo alone has literally hundreds of documented incidents of gross power abuse and often outright vandalism himself (see the ED article on him).

We live in an age when our Constitution is under attack on all fronts, when our phones are tapped, our mail is read, our bank accounts are sifted through, our libraries are monitored by the FBI, our civil liberties are disregarded, and freedom in the Land of the Free is driven back.

We need as much freedom of speech as we can get, and Wikipedia is an excellent repository for the endangered right. The lack of respect for the First Amendment here truly scares me--and shows ample cause for the political decay in this country.

People simply don't care anymore. They see oppression and turn away. They see a fascist and give her a Barnstar.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn

Beg pardon, but who did I refer to as a fascist? I see no sentence proclaiming, "___ is a fascist." It is not there. I was speaking in generalities about what I see as the deterioration of free speech on this site.

That being the case, I have made no personal attacks whatsoever. You, unfortunately, unsavorably, but so predictably, have conducted yourself in a way that deters many potentially outstanding contributors from ever helping with the project. It is such a shame.

P.S.

Explain on my talk page (Nanaszczebrzeszyn) why I have been banned, now that your transparent claim of "personal attacks" is no longer valid. If you cannot do this (and, of course, you can't, because I haven't done anything wrong except voiced an opinion you don't like) I will alert other administrators. At least the Jimbo fellow has some sense.

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

JoshuaZ/Archive 8

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Young Earth Creationism

How is evidence in conflict with YEC? Evidence is measurable properties. Could you elucidate on your understanding/interpretation? Dan Watts 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the creationists love to say that they are just interpreting the evidence differently, however the only people who say this are the creationists. The fact is that scientists in the 19th century became convinced by the evidence, they didn't miraculously change their interpretations. To describe it any other way is extremely POV. JoshuaZ 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangely some scientists also interpret evidence differently. (see [1] or [2] or [3] or www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/2002aets/f7_abd_el_khalick.rtf or [4] or [5] or [6] or [7] or [8]. Perhaps you would like the position shown in the first paragraph of [9].) Dan Watts 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you think I'm arguing that scientists don't interpret data? Of course scientists interpret data, that doesn't change the fact that the evidence made certain interpretations so strained as to be ridiculous, hence what matters was the evidence. I must say I'm slightly annoyed that you weren't more explicit in terms of what you were trying to refute since it made me have to go through and look at all the sources cited, some of which are well known, some were interesting, some were crap and and at least from is ID apologists. I do have a limited amount of time, and this isn't a very useful way of taking it up. JoshuaZ 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to include an ID apologist (sorry). My concern re evidence is the selectiveness of what is allowed, such as Lammerts' experiments showing multiple rings-per-year for bristlecone pines [10] (it wasn't illegal, as it is now, when he did the research). I don't see that discussed in the dendrochronology pages. The only discussion that I saw centered on Lammerts' experiments were only on young trees - talk about shooting the messenger. Measurements of granite viscosity at room temperature and pressure (1989 Advances in Plasticity, Pergamon Press, Astar Khan and Masataka Tokuda Editors, 'On a New Creep Experiment of Large Granite Beam Started in 1980' H. Ito and N. Kumagai, pp27-30) which has implications that most crater ages (especially those on the moon) are uncomfortably short - is conveniently ignored. I don't see any discussion of that. T-Rex pliable tissue that will not be measured by AMS techniques (because they don't want to know the answer?), uncritical acceptance of universal contamination (by unknown means) of coal with 14C, etc. Dan Watts 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan, this is getting very far off topic from the original matter which was solely over why the scientific community changed its position in the 19th century. If you are attempting to now argue that there is evidence today that would support a young earth that is a completely different matter and not germane to the matter at hand. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia WP:NPOV(including among other issues the section on pseudoscience) policy and WP:V, Wikipedia gives weight to the scientific consensus much more than to arguments that are endorsed by creationists and no one else. I will however, briefly point out that many of the claims you refer above are either flat out wrong or suffer from other problems- it is well known that bristlecones do has a few years that occasionally get double rings. However most double rings are easily identifiable and you simply cannot get double ring density high enough for young earth and certainly cannot get it high enough for a global flood (in fact, I saw an amusing apologetic work from ultra-orthodox Jews which claimed that one could only trace back using dendrochonology to aboy 5700 years, as they observe, so very close to the traditional Jewish date. However, they didn't consider that even if that were true, it completely invalidated a global flood). The other claims are similarly flawed. JoshuaZ 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion

Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservipedia

Presuming the JoshuaZ here is you, I worry you may have rather a fight on your hands to try and get rationality over there, given one of the reasons stated for the split was that Wikipedia was too pro-evolution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What fun! Guettarda 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see how this goes. Regarding macroevolution and related issues, right now I'm just trying to get them to have some defintions that make sense- the definitions used for macro and micro evolution aren't even the creationist strawmen but some weird set of ideas constructed by the guy who runs the thing. Ah well. JoshuaZ 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, it burns... Georgewilliamherbert 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI [11] Guettarda 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there. JoshuaZ 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More coverage: [12] Guettarda 02:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why even bother with making it seem like such a flagrantly biased place even has some good information in it? That will just confuse people more. It's easier to correct people if they have such blatant misconceptions.--TheAlphaWolf 07:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ. I don't know if this question is fair to direct at you, but I figured I would try. I felt like getting slightly involved in correcting errors on Conservapedia, but found the account creation system broken (ie, the log in/create account page was only a log in page). Do you have any idea if this is intentional, vandalism or simply a case of me missing something in front of my face? Anyways, sorry to see that an "admin" on Conservapedia blocked you (because it seems you must have full sysop privileges to edit protected pages like "Evolution," and those granted such are quick to abuse them). You definitely did the best you could to help out that place. 24.58.9.19 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point they are restricting editing to people who email the Eagle Forum. I think they wanted to set a slightly higher bar to deal with all the vandalism they were getting. If you send them an email you should be ok. JoshuaZ 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan

Hi JoshuaZ. Regarding the changes you reverted, I've given an item-by-item breakdown on the talk page and asked for feedback. Did you want to weigh in with any specific objections or suggestions for improvement? I'd like to work toward agreement with you. Tim Smith 01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

mediations on Cole and MEMRI

Would it be possible to set up a deadline for participation of some sort on these semi-formal mediations, or at least to add your comments? My problem is that I have stopped reverting, but Armon and Isarig continue to, with no regard for the discussion pages of the articles (I see the same is also happening with Middle East Quarterly and Middle East Forum). So it is in their interest to delay any kind of mediation as long as possible, since that ensures that their disputed versions of the page remain online. There is no real incentive for them to participate in the discussions. On the Cole page, Armon simply ignored my arguments and said that he wasn't interested in mediation. He is welcome to not participate in such efforts, but he should not expect to then dictate the results of mediation, and he certainly is not in any position to dictate the contents of the page. On the MEMRI page, he has simply ignored the mediation effort entirely. Another user has presented additional information there as well, and I am in agreement with that user on most of those issues. Yet Armon and Isarig continue to revert that page to their preferred version, ignoring the substantive arguments both on the talk page and on your mediation page. I have backed off completely from editing both pages in favor of resolving the disputes through mediation, as well as to show my good faith and my willingness to participate in honest discussion. It seems however that the effect of my restraint so far has been to reward Armon's and Isarig's intransigence and their gaming of the 3RR. Your intervention on the mediation would be helpful at this point. Thank you. csloat 03:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tova Hartman, Mendel Shapiro and Daniel Sperber

Hi! Since you mentioned you knew me in my RfA and given that I have been made an issue in these AfDs whether appropriately or not, suggest leaving closing these disputed AfDs to a clearly neutral admin with no ties of any kind to either side of the controversy. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability schools

Please look back through the discussions. The edits which I made today were based on a compromise of language for those who discussed condensing the information, with very little objection to the concept of condensing, merely disagrements to the wording.

Alan's revert was out of spite for my disagreement to his assertion and his carying out a threat that he would revert conditional on my actions. This is inappropriate. Please reverse your reversion and let people discuss what I proposed. No information was deleted in my work, just moved to footnotes. There was a lot of careful effort at compromise in what I did.

Thanks!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chabad Messianism

Hi there, could you please help me out I don't know what to do. I am being chased around by User:PinchasC who will not let me add a single word or link about Michichism, let alone create a separate article.

Every time I try he pulls another deceitful slight of hand, reverting endlessly, nominating good articles for AfD just to confuse people and so on and so forth.

Chabad Messianism is one of the major controversies in Judaism in the past 50 years with numerous books on the subject yet PinchasC (and co) have ensured that there can only be 1 paragraph in all wikipedia about it - which is followed by endless of the point Berger-bashing.

He nominated Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch for AfD to create a smokescreen, when there was a clear consensus expressed that there should be a Chabad Messianism article I un-redirected it. He then redirected back again, without any debate and falsely claimed that all the info was in the other article.

How can this be resolved?

David Spart 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category Article

WOuld you just lay off already? If it makes you feel better Jayjg specifically recommended that I make a Category article for this, so I did.

Also please note that in the more traditionally observant sectors of Messianic Judaism the Talmud is very important, and most Messianic Torah commentaries quote the Talmud. Messianic Judaism is not really a two-Torah Judaism but at the same time it is incredibly far from being Christianity with a tallit. Ask anyoneone else on Wiki that is Messianic: me, Rikva, Inigmatus (who happens to follow Talmudic law non-selectively). I'm going to revert your edit. Noogster 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not Jayjg, his concerns are not identical to my concerns, and until you can provide a reliable source demonstrating that being a mishnaic Rabbi makes someone necessarily relevant to Messianic Judaism and constitute an important figure, such categorization is unacceptable. JoshuaZ 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well a very sizeable minority, if not a majority of people in our movement consider study of the Talmud to be important. As reliable sources I could simply list out half a dozen or more MJ websites that promote study of the Talmud/authority of the Mishneh Rabbis, but why bother now? That corrupt lout Jayjg has vandalized the article, removing all figures that aren't NT. Thus I am deleting the category altogether because I very much doubt that we'll be able to curb his irresponsible vandalism masked in small details of Wikipedia policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

If we will have such a category I would disagree with Jayjg's move, but even showing that there are MJ websites which promote Talmud study wouldn't demonstrate that such people are important figures to the movement per se. JoshuaZ 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Damnit, Josh. You removed my very important contribution to Conservapedia. Warning them about the dangers of Cthulhu is very, very important...  :^) Jodyw1 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my page...Jodyw1 05:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out Conservapedia from a link via The A.V. Club to see how terrible it is. (Answer: Very.) I was freaking amazed to see you there! I like how you're trying to introduce neutral material into an inherently non-neutral site. That place is... wow. I was there for five minutes, and I never want to again.

So anyway, how is life? I hope all is well, my friend. -- Kicking222 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Partnership minyan

Hi! FYI the term Rishonim refers to early medieval Rabbis, perhaps you ment Gedolim in your comment. Best --Shirahadasha 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant achronim. Thanks for catching that there. JoshuaZ 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

memri and cole mediations?

Hey Joshua can I get a response to the above regarding the MEMRI and Cole mediations? I've been holding back from editing either page until hearing from you regarding the semi-formal mediation. csloat 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Give it a few more days. Then I'm going to recommend this go to ArbCom if nothing happens. JoshuaZ 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. csloat 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Parody site?

Are you *SURE*? Because the information he gives on that page is absolutely identical to a copy of Friar's setting out of the concept I grabbed from the Wayback machine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. Having the information be identical just makes it all the easier to change it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

a quantity

A heads up: it may have been a hypothetical statement, but if not, you may soon be blessed with "a quantity of editors" to "fix" Intelligent Design.[13] Cheers, — coelacan talk — 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd Metropolis

Thanks for your message. In this case there is no consensus to delete, which produces the result keep. Bucketsofg 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I had already down that. Bucketsofg 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bed

It's bed for you me lad! (sounds like you need a kip - me too!) :) --Fredrick day 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Correction

Well, I wasn't sure how severe his final sanction was. As far as I know, he's kind of under probation... I guess. It was kind of a non-specific resolution, which is why {{banned}} surprised me. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

csloat block

I'm an uninvolved editor, but generally have supported csloat in disputes past. Just wanted to make sure you're aware that the post you blocked csloat for appears to be two weeks old. If that's irrelevant to your decision, please disregard and be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

מכה בפטיש

I heard it at a lecture by Rabbi Ribiat, who referred to his book, the Lamed-Tes Melochos. Unfortunately, I do not have it in the house, but if you can get your hands on it, the מכה בפטיש section ought to be very short. - NYC JD (make a motion) 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Commodore Sloat

Seems to me that a block for something that occurred two weeks ago is rather punitive. WP:BLP says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." It doesn't say, "hunt down the person who made the questionable edit and block them", and I'm not sure what the value of that is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to this (and before I read Jpgordon's message here), I have unblocked the user, and asked him to be more careful in future. As the comment was on a talk page, not an article, and as it was an opinion, perhaps you could be a little kinder in future (especially for a first offence)? Proto ► 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I told Jp that if he disagreed he should feel free to unblock. However, I think Jp's reasoning made more sense than yours. BLP applies to talk pages. That's not negotiable. JoshuaZ 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP advises to remove the offending section, not to block the offender without warning - that was a decision you took, not one mandated by BLP. Proto ► 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Commiserations

I see you just got booted from Conservapedia, albeit temporarily. Not sure how much longer I'll survive myself. I suspect it's going the way of creationwiki; a stagnant echo-chamber where any old drivel is allowed to stand so long as it fits the zeitgeist of the powers that be. Rather predictable, I suppose, but I thought you at least would last a little longer, given the obvious positive contributions you were making. Ah, well. Fortunately, I'm far too cynical to find this disappointing. Congratulations on making the effort, anyway. Tsumetai 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I spoke too soon. Good to see you back. Tsumetai 11:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last action on Global warming controversy

Hi,
You have just reverted my revert of William M. Connolley's revert of my edits for the following reason : "rv, even if JA is a climatologist(unclear), one dissenter is still very little debate. lets not pretend otherwise"
Obviously, you did not follow at all the discussion that was going on. I would not have cared if your dubious action would not force me towards my 3-reverts limit, which I am serious about respecting.
Please allow me to ask you not to jump right into reverting edits if you do not intend to participate or at least read the discussion about them. Thanks. --Childhood's End 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College

Regarding your message on Pep65497 (talk · contribs)'s talk page [14], Pep65497 reverted the article twice more this morning. I went ahead and reported [15] it at WP:AN3R. I am amazed the user is trying to frame this as a censorship fight when s/he is the one removing properly cited content. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)

Sorry about the bit of original research. On reflection, it really is speculative. I accept the edit completely. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

JJay RfC

Just wanted to let you know I posted at the RfC. Arbustoo 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Robot or cyborg?

According to the Star Trek canon, the Borg Queen was created from the assimilation of a female humanoid lifeform (Species 125) who was, for whatever reason, considered suitable for the coordinator job. Therefore she is a cybernetic organism, an organic lifeform that is expanded/enhanced by mechanical body parts like any Borg drone is, rather than a robotic entity. --BorgQueen 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Good article from Guardian Unlimited here: Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia

It has been attacked many times in its short life, most notably by a former aide to Robert F Kennedy and the editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. But now the online reference site Wikipedia has a new foe: evangelical Christians.

A website founded by US religious activists aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia which has become one of the most popular sites on the web. The founders of Conservapedia.com say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".

Although entries on Wikipedia are open for anyone to edit, conservative campaigners say they are unable to make changes to articles on the site because of inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors. Instead they have chosen to build a clone which they hope will promote Christian values.

"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

Among his criticisms listed on Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly explains how many Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English and says that it "refuses" to give enough credit to Christianity for the Renaissance. "Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he continues.

Mr Schlafly, a lawyer by day, is the son of a prominent American conservative, Phyllis Schlafly, renowned for her opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment. He says Conservapedia was created last November as a project for home-schooled children - and believes it could eventually become a reference for teachers in the US. "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he said.

Wikipedia has come in for criticism for its open approach, notably from Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Mr Hoiberg disputed a survey in the scientific journal Nature which found that the website was just as accurate as its venerable counterpart. Meanwhile, a Tennessee journalist, John Seigenthaler, attacked the site for suggesting he had been accused of involvement in the assassinations of both John and Bobby Kennedy in the 1960s.

The arrival of Conservapedia has been met with derision by much of the internet community. But Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, said he was not upset by the rightwing site's claims.

"Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants. That's directly in line with our mission."

How they compare:

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia, logo above

"Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia

"They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia

"The party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention."

Conservapedia "The Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles."

Angmering 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just mentioning this at User talk:Jim62sch#Ach, weel., as you may have noticed, and Jim's eruditely observed these cons don't know their Latin from their Greek. The Grauniad's Technoblog for Wed ran a story about it, with the subhead "Lunatic Tendencies". By the way, the nice pic of Jesus on a dinosaur is worth a look in this previous version: not sure if he's holding a pet baby scelidosaurus or an alligatorskin handbag. .. dave souza, talk 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment relocated

Thanks for quickly relocating that comment of mine; it was an embarrassing error. Matt Gies 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship criteria

Just out of curiousity, what on earth makes a good admin in your opinion? I don't mean to bother you, anything simple will do, if you don't mind. Do you maybe have one of those subpages about it? Milto LOL pia 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I edited my Ann Coulter entry and it was reverted again. Can you help me understand why the second edit was rejected?

Is "common ploy" the only offending language? What is an alternative neutral phrasing? It is a tactic which she has repeatedly used in the past. For example she accused Bill Clinton of being a latent homosexual as an explanation for his rumored promiscuity. It is a repeated tactic used to create controversy and publicity.

I left a comment in the discussion. Since she is a social and political critic and it is a pattern in her critique, I feel it deserves recognition since she has used the tactic repeatedly. Thanks for your feedback.

Fyslee

Hi JoshuaZ! Sounds like you're swamped here -- I'm sure it's the full moon ;-) -- but if you're so inclined, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision. It appears that the ArbCom is close to instituting a ban of some sort on User:Fyslee, which would be a serious loss to WP, as he is one of the best scientific skeptical editors we've got. Here are a couple of good things Fyslee has done: [16], [17]. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comments on Wikipedia Review

Pursuant to this dif I hope you will not close this . Also, please don't assume that people who disagree with you are somehow not being moral- you aren't the only person with a moral compass and disagreement about what you think is or is not moral doesn't mean other people aren't thinking about morality. Furthermore, even if they aren't thinking about morality, it isn't obvious that that is a relevant concern. JoshuaZ 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to read all pertinent discussions in full, because I feel that several people don't have the full picture. I'll supply the links for the things you should read:

• the full text of the DRV close;
• the full WR thread, including my reply to Everyking (be sure to read this after you have read the closing notes, or you will not understand where I have paraphrased myself);
• the full text of the Gregory Lauder-Frost AfD, particularly my closing notes;
• the full text of the subsequent deletion review of my close of that debate.

I heartily suggest that you (or anyone else who feels tempted to comment) familiarise yourself with that material before commenting any further. --bainer (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read all that (in fact, I had read most of that before) and I think it looks disturbingly close to you having pre-judged the results you want and then constructing a long seemingly impartial analysis to get it. Please also remember that an appearance of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. Incidnetally, who the heck is Somey? JoshuaZ 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand your assertion. My stated preference (which I have been open about) is for merging the contents of the article elsewhere, since it is really Brandt's work that is notable more than he is. If I had "pre-judged the results [I] want" to obtain my preference, surely the article would have undergone a merge?

Your basis for deducing that I want the article deleted is faulty. You have clearly misunderstood what I said in my post. I suggest you read it again, and if you still misunderstand it, then I can explain to you how you have misunderstood. --bainer (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

User talk:David Spart/Chabad Messianism

Following a recent wheel-war over Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch in which PinchasC did not let me write an article on Chabad Messianism even after an AfD implied consensus for such an article I was advised to write such an article in my user space. I have now done so and would be grateful for any feedback from you before I put it up. David Spart 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for intervention on Lewis Libby dispute

I seem to have reached an impass in a dispute that was originally about sourcing, research, and privacy, but has now degenerated into a problem of personal attacks and accusations of harrassment. I tried to engage in mediation, but the other user NYScholar has refused. I am trying to stay cool but would appreciate some intervention on the part of some administrators. Thanks. The sad saga is played out on the Talk:Lewis Libby page. Notmyrealname 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Notmyrealname 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on this page. I'm checking out from it for a while. Notmyrealname 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Illuminating

And there was me going off to find a cite for the rest of that rubbish on Illuminati :p --Alf ^melmac 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Safarti article

When you get some time again, I'd like to continue our discussion on the Safarti article. --Otheus 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Does a "conflict of interest" mean I may not edit my Conservapedia article? Aschlafly

Me? Admin?

I certainly appreciate you thinking of me, but adminship's not my bag. I'm no longer active enough to receive sufficient !votes (in the past month and a half, I have less than 75 total edits), and I just don't care enough to really care. I'm happy in my new role as occasional WP editor- I'm having to leave the job of heavy contributor to excellent admins such as yourself. -- Kicking222 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

On the issue of creation of new accounts there are several editors that refuse to discuss the issue on the talk pages. I have reverted too many times. I give up for tonight. Not sure what to do next. Tmtoulouse 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've issues some attention getting blocks asking them to look at their talk pages, since they may not be aware of them. JoshuaZ 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't?

(A pooftah is a gay man.) Apparently, Coulter is now notable for making jokes about pooftahs. There is no rule number 6. Kyaa the Catlord 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

She's not notable for being a tall woman either. What is your point? Kyaa the Catlord 08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if Monty Python had done the Bruces today, they'd be burnt at the stake. Sad, really. Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I don't think it's proper to be protecting the DRV page with a number of different reviews on it. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice joke! You're in BJAODN!

Your comment to CobraR478 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was funny enough I copied it over to Wikipedia:Dr. Bad Jokes, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Deleted Nonsense#From User talk:CobraR478 by JoshuaZ. Jesse Viviano 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the Essjay RfC. I appreciate it. -- William Pietri 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

I noticed you involvment in conservapedia including in the discussion on the elementary proof criticism. I find a number of their idea funny such as the perceived 'anglophile' bias but one of the things I find most bizzare is their apparent love of elementary proof and dislike of complex numbers and non-elementary proof. Any idea why they have this view? I don't have a great knowledge of this level of maths or physics but would it have something to do with their obvious disagreement with the Big Bang and other theories which obviously don't agree with their world view? (N.B. your welcome to reply here as you mention you normally do) Nil Einne 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can think of two explanations. 1) A number of recent popularizations (such as that Erdos biography whose name escapes me at the moment) and some popularizations about the prime number theorem have emphasized the idea of elementary methods 2) I think that Andrew Schlafly may be an example of one of those laypeople who has for lack of a better term, issues with some forms of abstract mathematics, possibly seeing them as less than real. JoshuaZ 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time on "Conservopedia".

That site is nothing more than a waste of time. It is run not by specifically "conservatives" but by religious zealots who don't know anything about politics, science, economics or anything else for that matter. Trying to "improve" Conservopedia is like trying to clean up a landfill still in use. It's a waste of time. The website itself will eventually die a natural death and wasting time on it really isn't a good idea. The only thing you accomplish by editing there and spending time there is increasing it's content and traffic and making it more popular. Your time would be much better spent simply improving this site and not spending time arguing with the clowns over at "conservopedia" and getting nowhere.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh calm down. I have my own reasons for editing there, which I can assure you are reasonable. JoshuaZ 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do tell.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Jon Swift

If you get a chance could you check out some of the points at [18] I would appreciate greatly your expanded input on the issue at hand. Thanks. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to Partnership minyan

Hi JoshuaZ! an edit was made to Partnership minyan adding the following paragraph:

Recently in the JOFA 10th Anniversary International Conference on Feminism & Orthodoxy, three members of these minyanim (Elitzur Bar-Asher, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Alanna Copper), in a session under the title: "Beyond Women Issue: Partnership Minyanim Engages Orthodoxy," articulated for the first time the methodology of the halachic decision process and the ideology behind these minyanim. <ref>[http://www.geretz.org/partnership_minyan.htm "Orthodox Conference explores "partnership minyan"],''The Jewish State''</ref>

I don't have any problem with the reliability of the media source, which contains excerpts from the JOFA paper which could legitimately added to the article. The paper itself, if it were published, could be cited and its content excerpted. But it doesn't seem to me that the mere presentation of an unpublished paper in a conference -- with nothing about the content, just the presentation of a paper and a claim the paper is a first -- is appropriate encyclopedia content for this article. (I also disbelieve the claim of first publication. For example, Tamar Ross wrote about these topics in her 2004 book Expanding the Palace of Torah, although doubtless not in as much detail). I want to be helpful to these people and if they have value to add and can reliably source it, I want to them to get their content in and they're welcome to cite the any acceptable publication. However, I feel that simply adding a paragraph about the existence and virtues of an unpublished paper without meaningfully describing what it says on the article topic is not appropriate encyclopedia content and is possibly WP:SOAP. I'd appreciate a second opinion on this issue as well as your input about how to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have to say. However, the COI issues both of us on this matter are severe. I suggest we get someone else to look at the matter, maybe Avi. JoshuaZ 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked SlimVirgin who said that in general the existence of papers adds to notability and hence is appropriate for the article. Perhaps someone might want to read the newspaper article cited and perform the usual verification, including double-checking if it actually contains a statement that the paper is the first to be published on the topics indicated. The "firstness" claim at first brush would seem to be evidence of lack of notability and an argument for deleting the whole topic. However, an appropriately tempered claim of firstness isn't logically inconsistent with the article topic being notable. For example, it might be possible that the topics have been the subject of publications individually but this is the first to put them together. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I trust you to make the verification- I don't think that would entail too much of a COI. Incidentally, the IP address that added it is interesting. JoshuaZ 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A User:140.247.10.136 came in and deleted this material without explanation. This IP address appears to come from the same network as user:140.247.10.141 who added the material in the first place. If I knew the two users were simply the same person using two different IP addresses, I'd allow the delete. Since I myself questioned the material when it was added, I'd have no problem if its author simply had second thoughts about it. But I don't know if they're the same person or not, so I felt I needed to revert given the policy against deleting a substantial swath of material without notifying anyone or providing any explanation. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Did this. See User talk:140.247.10.136. Also added a comment to user talk:140.247.10.141 --Shirahadasha 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruckman edits

Having not read the sources you quote, I must ask are you sure they say what you have said they say? JoshuaZ 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't have the book in front of me, I'm confident that these citations are correct. In any case, we'll hear about it shortly if they're not.--John Foxe 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, I got it right. Our friends never deny the really weird stuff.--John Foxe 11:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews

I've been reverted by an admin there after commenting out the photo you'd removed earlier from Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees, you may wish to add to the talk there, though note there's moves afoot to get that image deleted altogether. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Habakuk

I don't see any sources but the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia is here. David Spart 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Parody vs Reality

I understand that FSM is a parody religion and I find it very humorous but in the article it is misleading to say that it is merely a parody religion when many people believe that it is just as worthwhile as so called non parody religions. Therefore the entire concept of a parody religion is absurd given that all religions are just as unjustifiable. Therefore the parody concept should be stated but it should also be linked to religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nv sasuki (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Danny Brandt

Thank you for removing your question :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtectWomen (talk • contribs)

secondary sources on Daniel Brandt

I stand corrected! At least one of the sources (salon) is clearly a substantial and reliable secondary source about the subject.(there may be others as I havent carefully checked them all. I would be happy to admit that on the afd but your firm comment makes that rather unnecessary.  :-)

Anyway, I guess where I was going with my comment was that you were attacking a newcomer (gently) who was having difficulties seeing the notability and I was pointing out that that even "secondary sources" is loose term when applied out of historical studies, so the argument to use the primary criterion on WP:BIO needs to be a good one. I went too far in saying "no secondary sources", as I hadn't checked them all individually; instead I looked over them and found a lot that were not substantially about the subject and/or not secondary sources (as described in secondary sources). Personally, I dont think that newspaper articles about a recent event at the time of publishing the newspaper article should be considered secondary sources, as I see the benefit of reflection as one of the differentiators between primary and secondary (refer to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ#Newspapers for a bit of discussion on that point). John Vandenberg 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Here is a reference for Wikipedia Community article. Do your magic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187113.stm --QuackGuru 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link that may give you some ideas on expanding. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Community --QuackGuru 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

I replied to your replies in thread at Danial Brandt's 13th Nomination.--CastAStone|^(talk) 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

Thanks for informing me of that. I also noted other changes and other proposals, and a merge may work better in the end. I changed the vote to reflect that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community AfD

Thanks for the heads up. I've changed my view - seems like valid info - Regards - Munta

Community

Thank you. I stand by my original AfD comment, and will (of course) accept the ultimately determined consensus view. I am not enthusiastic about being canvassed on AfD matters.--Anthony.bradbury 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI and Juan Cole mediations

Will you be following up on these mediation attempts? I'm posting a note to the memri page suggesting that we try to revive the mediation discussion there. It would be helpful if you put your two cents in on the mediation page, I think. Thanks. csloat 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly

Would you mind taking a pass or two at this article on RegisterFly and let me know what you think needs adjusting? I had asked Hipocrite a week or two ago to look, and he seemed to think it was alright, but he is gone now from Wikipedia... I think I did a good structural job on it (it's a bit complex, with two interweaving lawsuits across four parties, and fairly absurd allegations--see the $6,000 chihuahua) and it's all 101% sourced... but there is really little postive press/news on them unfortunately. I keep looking at it, thinking it might be an attack piece, but I think I may be looking too hard. Seems like a low-notability super successful company that imploded and is getting lots of fame for that, ala Enron (but smaller scale)... please let me know what you think, and make tweaks as needed if you have time or the inclination, or if you can share any advice. This was the most complex thing I've done on here yet--like 99% of the edits are me. thanks! - Denny 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny Brandt's "contribution"

Hi there,

just noticed that you took out Brandt's comment from the AfD and I am wondering if that is i.a.w. the rules. Shouldn't we, for the sake of fairness have him say his piece, even if only on the AfD talk page? Alf^Photoman 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No. His personal opinion is irrelevant, the AfD is not a soapbox for him any more than the article talk page is. Under the unlikely event that he said anything useful(the comment about the Washington Post may turn up a decent source) one can look in the history. JoshuaZ 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"the unlikely event that he said anything useful" So, you didn't read it? Yanksox 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read it- notice that I referred to his mention of the Washington Post article on Ollie North. JoshuaZ 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to reconsider. We allow pretty much any other interested party to contribute on talk pages. His comment is clear, well-written, relevant, and doesn't violate WP:NPA. It's certainly not changing my opinion that we should keep the article, but I don't think we should suppress his comment. Thanks, William Pietri 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since enough other users have disagree with me on this matter, I am not going to revert the placement on the talk page. However, I will point out that we let interested parties in good standing comment. Brandt is banned. JoshuaZ 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case I think it's worth making the exception because the article is about him. William Pietri 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Just a short message to let you know that I reposted the statement by Daniel Brandt about his article on the talk page of the AfD [19]. I did not want to start reverting you on the main page, but in this special case I think it would be a good idea to let him have his say. I kindly ask you not to remove the statement from the talk page. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I just now noticed your reply to the comment above mine. I hope leaving the comment on the talk page is an acceptable compromise to you and still ask you not to remove it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not act to remove it although I strongly object to that placement. JoshuaZ 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if it turns out that the consensus is that it should be removed, I naturally will respect that. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Replied on my talk, since it required a good bit of explanation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Paul Hartal

I notice you've had some dealings with this individual on Talk:Columbia Pacific University and the AFD discussion for Rochelle Holt. Paul has begun crossposting a long rant accusing me and others of libel to several wiki entries. I posted a note about this on WP:AN/I [20] just now, but then realized you're an admin who is somewhat familiar with the situation. Mr. Hartal really needs to stop making legal threats, and he doesn't seem to realize that accusations of libel constitute a legal threat - despite several prior warnings. Can you look into it? Thanks! Skinwalker 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Will Beback has also been involved in editing Columbia Pacific University and in trying to get Mr. Hartal to behave, so I think he would probably recuse himself from any intervention as well. I will let my note on AN/I sit - hopefully a non-involved admin will take up the issue. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger J. Geronimo and Rochelle Holt

I have responded to your comments at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PA on Sarfati page

Hi JZ, I don't see where anyone made a personal attack. At first I though you were referring to 58's response to me "Do you always ask leading questions" which he suffixed with a wink ;). Then when I saw that you made the mention of slander, I thought, okay, but he's not accusing you of slander. He's saying "the likes of JoshuaZ" which could be interpreted very broadly.

Look he's angry, and he quickly goes back and forth between conciliation and hostility, and I felt that your comment warning him of PA when I don't think he meant one was further fanning the flames and leading him toward hostility.

Yes, I am angry when power-mad admins hide behind corrupt ArbCom rulings to ban their ideological opponents. I can have no confidence that ideological opponents of admins like Felonious Monk, JoshuaZ, Guettarda can get a fair hearing when they are accuser, judge, jury and executioner. It is especially corrupt when an admin who has been warned for tendentious editing can ban an opponent for a week for merely commenting without even voting on a Request for Deletion! 58.162.2.122 13:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to go back and remove the "personal attack" portion. Please. I think it does no good until there is a clear case of PA.

--Otheus 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, saying "the likes of..." doesn't let him off the hook. If Sarfati isn't talking about Josh, then he is talking about other Wikipedia editors. His behaviour is unacceptable. Under no circumstances should be tolerate his misbehaviour. Just counting what's on the current version of the talk page there are repeated personal attacks by him. Dig through the archives and the page history and you'll see lots more. Guettarda 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually he referred to me as an "arch-slanderer"(which I incidentally wonder if that is all like an Archbishop)(and does he understand the difference between slander and libel?) JoshuaZ 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Methinks my standard for "personal attack" might be a tad higher than yours, no insult intended. --Otheus 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Missed the "arch-slanderer". That page is pretty hard to follow. As for slander versus libel - when you make a living doing what he does, it probably becomes a habit... Guettarda 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, now weren't we just talking about libel being a personal attack, or am I mistaken? --Otheus 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If I block anyone for engaging in PAs [a certain admin] will probably give them a barnstar. Not worth the stress (though if he continues I might change my mind). Guettarda 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LAF. I was thinking of giving a certain user a barnstar just so I can have a productive discussion. Oh, and yes, I like herding cats, giving them baths, clipping their claws, etc. It's so much fun! --Otheus 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747 and stealth deletion

Hi JoshuaZ. I really don't think it is right to wipe out a carefully refed article with a redirect just because you are "not at all convinced it is notable enough for its own article. it might make sense in the general article on the book". That would be (perhaps) a reasonable stance in an AfD debate, although the fact that this argument is discussed specifically in two notable books and by at least two other notable commentators, and has 694 ghits including this interesting exchange between Dennet & Orr militates against this. But if you think this should be deleted surely the proper course is to say so in an AfD, not just wipe it by a revert? NBeale 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this - much appreciated. I think getting the Dennet pro-material will be a help. But I wish someone more sympathetic to Dawkins would try to make a philosophical summary of the argument. NBeale 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetitive use of the word "conservative" in consecutive sentences is certainly ungrammatical. I have restored your erroneous Coulter edit. Not Dilbert 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoshuaZ. Is there a Wp:Policy against humor?? If not, why have you removed the image?? NBeale 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NBeale has appealed to you for help so I assume this means he holds you in some regard as an editor. Could you please review the current situation on this article as it is all going a bit "pear-shaped" and edit summaries such as this show that he has missed some very important points about how wikipedia works. Thanks in advance for your time. Sophia 12:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose!

Check out this edit: [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Spart (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Good work

You're doing good work over on Conservapedia, arguing for fairness and rationality in a way I only wish I could. Keep it up. No need to reply, your time is valuable. Mykll42 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

RSLancastr

Joshua, I just saw your comment on my user page. I appreciate the conflict of interest warning, but I don't think I've updated the Browne Wiki entry since I started the web site against her. I may have, but I don't think so. Also, I have no clue how to start a Wiki email account, so you can email me at the address on the StopSylviaBrowne web site's Contact page. Thanks! RSLancastr 07:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "hope you don't mind me fixing your spelling" on my userpage

Not at all. Thanks for catching the error. :) -- Kicking222 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Thumperward homophobic abuse and sockpuppetry

My user page has been vandalised by User:Thumperward using a certain sock [[22]] - check out the coincidental interest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe the Glenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP".

I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive. How should I deal with this situation?

This user has at least one more sock-puppet User:R. Baley, which he has used to avoid 3RR on that page. "Both" of them have taken been making similar edits to Jaun Cole and Greenwald articles and others. The IP he has used is from a college in London. David Spart 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Suffice to say that none of this is true. It'd be nice to know whether it's acceptable to get allegations like this removed when proven to be false, would be nice not having it hanging around my name on Google and so on. Chris Cunningham 19:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So what happens with the allegations? Half a dozen pages currently include a paragraph accusing me of vandalism. Is there grounds for getting them removed, or edited? Chris Cunningham 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am user R. Baley. I don't know cunningham from adam. I live in new orleans. How do all these attacks on multiple pages not violate a WP policy somewhow. I would like it to stop. I'm not a newbie, but I'm not really sure how to defend myself here. R. Baley 06:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try differentiating your arguments and editing patterns if you want to give the impression of being two separate people. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 07:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can clutter up Joshua's page with some more crap. I'm no longer responding to you until this is resolved. have a great day. R. Baley 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

spin is still spin, "Critics' closing remarks"

Hi JoshuaZ, thanks for your interest in the article The Secret (2006 film).

• I don't see how I am doing spin with this. Here are all the edits I have done that reflect negatively on the film (many of these did not last as being OR — I'm learning)

Revision as of 11:59, 12 December 2006

Revision as of 22:16, 12 December 2006

Revision as of 00:37, 15 December 2006

Revision as of 07:13, 15 December 2006

Revision as of 14:24, 16 December 2006

Revision as of 19:37, 19 December 2006

Revision as of 17:07, 24 December 2006

• I feel that to filter out all the positive remarks, leaving in only the solely negative remarks at Editorial coverage and Health claims would produce an over-all negative POV to the "Criticism" section of the article. The reality is criticism has been both negative and positive. These two "negative" sub-sections give atleast 5 negative quotes, producing two sub-sections with tones 100% negative. To balance that—and reflect the criticism accurately—I created a section with five quotes that are positive (well mostly), producing a sub-section with an over-all positive tone — bringing NPOV to the "Criticism" section as a whole.
• As I mentioned at the talk page, I just took the closing remarks of all the respected critics being referenced at the article (ignoring the critic that was most positive — Chicago Tribune, a puff piece) and put them together. Yes, I was intentionally seeking out positive remarks by critics, however I did that because I felt the "Criticism" section's over-all negative tone was misrepresenting what was being said by critics of the film.
• Lastly, I assure you, that whatever piece of mental SPAM you may think this film is, that I am not in some other camp in opposition to you.

I find that achieving NPOV on this film is like balancing an egg on its end. It just doesn't want to be there. —WikiLen 14:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks again for the nomination. I was glad to see it so successful, and so far, there've been no problems at CSD. I'lll have to be getting to work on those backlogs, though. Shimeru 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Essay

Hi JoshuaZ, have a read of my latest essay here. Let me know what you think of it. As for the RFA thing, maybe nominate me in about a month's time...

Hope you're OK! --sunstar net^talk 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi JoshuaZ,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and NPOV

You might want to offer some advice to an editor who is added the POV tag at Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. Arbustoo 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Hitchens BLP violation

I expressed talk:Juan Cole an opinion about a recent block you made on CSLOAT; the comment was made without appropriate due diligence. I apologize.--CSTAR 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I might add, that it was also wrong for me to second guess you in that way.--CSTAR 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish prayers and blessings

Hi! I'm getting a spam blacklist block attempting to roll back a vandalism edit to the article. I suspect that some hebrew transliteration string or other is tripping the spam filter. Will investigate another day but, in the meanwhile, perhaps somebody with rollback and the ability to override the spam filter should revert the article. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Handled through WP:AN -- already done. Have a good Wikibreak. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cockroaches

Hello and sorry for the spam. You participated in this discussion, which was closed but now restarted as a new discussion by the closing admin. In case you're interested, please join the new one. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Metzenberg (talk · contribs)

After an edit dispute over Jewish reactions to Intelligent Design and related articles, Metzenberg left me a message saying he thought he was being Wikistalked and abruptly pulled his user page. Since you do a lot with the article topics he's been working on, do you know anything about the situation? He was having an edit dispute with User:ZayZayEM which seemed a little heated but I don't understand this reaction, and very likely didn't see all that was going on. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM. Made a statement as a named other party. He appears to have restored his userid and chosen to bring the matter directly to ArbCom. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question regarding your blocking me.

and since i was blocked, my talk page was the only place i could ask it. r b-j 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke

Say user, same edits, but different day. This is a WP:SPA going on for a year. This user contributes nothing, but headaches. I think a stern warning and mention of a block for SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in order. Arbustoo 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi  :-)

Long time no chat. I was just wondering how the whole Schools thing has turned out. Have my cynical predictions of interminable stalemate come to pass?

PS – your talk page is 98kb long; almost as long as WWII. It might be about time to archive again ;-)

Later --Ling.Nut 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

Would you please explain to me under what rule you have the right to delete one of my user pages? Without any citation of rules, it looks merely like an attempt at intimidation -which I assume it is not. If that were the case, it would be, at least, WP:POINT. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment in the nomination as well as other comments in the discussion adequately explain my reasoning. JoshuaZ 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also a possible candidate for MfD is User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV. This does not appear to be an essay. Note in particular many controversial revisions to WP core policies, such as [23] in which the User issues such dictates as, "However, when we are presenting the viewpoint of a paranormal topic in the main body of an article, we must present it as if it is a fact". A psuedo-policy such as User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV has the potential to be highly disruptive to the community and get in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia. -- LuckyLouie 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anuetronic Fusion article

There are continual edits on the Aneutronic fusion article that do not make sense because of a language barrier issue. They are from two IP addresses as I've noted in the talk section of that article. I'm not a contributor to that article but I do watch it because the topic is an interesting one to many folks. Anyhow, if you think that the way that the edits have been done merit an IP block for those IP addresses then please consider doing that. Mostly it seems to be wasting one guy's time who has some expertise in the area. Mathchem271828 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on that problem. Mathchem271828 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I try not to bite newbies, but on Aneutronic fusion even my patience is wearing thin. IP 218.219.238.219 (presumably the same as User:Shigetaka Ikegami, IP 211.129.222.223, and a few others) is regularly making incoherent edits, apparently based on original research, and refuses to engage on the Talk page. Do you think you can block his IP, or semi-protect the page, or something? Again. --Art Carlson 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia: Richard

I agree there are issues with this section, but removing it entirely deletes any reference to what I feel is a significant event in the evolution (so called) of Conservapedia. This event has been noted elsewhere and if it can be more widely sourced I feel it should remain in some form. Rapotter 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source for it then by all means include it. But as it is now, we don't have much choice in the matter. JoshuaZ 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews and religion

Despite ignoring his RfC JJay is back. Give your two cents at Talk:The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World's Most Famous Seer. Arbustoo 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rewording looks fine to me. I don't think this is that relevant to the RfC concerns anyways. JoshuaZ 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

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 06:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks so much for your nom and you r help!!! The RfA closed with a final vote was 51-2-3. Well, this is all new to me. Didn't realize rollback, block, and protect buttons would be right next to the others -- gotta be careful not to press the wrong one! Thanks again, --Shirahadasha 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

HaAl HaGadol HaGibor V'HaNorah

JoshuaZ, when you say the amidah, do you actually pray to the great, might, and totally-way-cool God? Are the Yamim Noraim the "days of coolness"? HaNorah means "fearsome". The formal English meaning of "awesome" -- one that most peopls anyone over 30 or so still think of as the plain and simple meaning -- is exactly that, inspiring fear or terror. Look it up in Wictionary. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, saw the rest of the IP's er, uh, "contributions", definitely a vandal. --Shirahadasha 20:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Emily J. Hilscher

Just thought I'd leave you a note to thank you did a good job on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily J. Hilscher. I think it is good that you left a detailed message outlining the reason behind your redirection. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey... just wanted to say the same thing as Evil Monkey above. Good job in closing, esp. with the long reasonings. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if those vehemently opposed to deletion will request a DRV. Sigh... Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

block of Codex Sinaiticus

Hi! Could you take a look at the note I left on User talk:JzG for a moment? Am I being totally off my rocker here? Don't want to be involved in a dispute over disagreement about a block unnecessarily. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ubx help

I need some one to make it so it lists you as a metalica fan like in the other ubx

<div style="float: right; border:solid black 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 235px; background: gray;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: gray; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|gray}}};" | '''[[Image:Metallica logo.svg|100px|Metallica logo]]''' | style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};"|This user loves [[Metallica]] |}</div> <includeonly> [[Category:Wikipedians who listen to Metallica|{{PAGENAME}}]] </includeonly><noinclude> [[Category:Musician fan user templates|Metallica]] </noinclude>

DenDeZ 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? JoshuaZ 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (Nowiking above to remove category inconveniences). JoshuaZ 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

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 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Ashen

Hmm. Wikipedia doesn't like things that only exist on the internet! That's something to add here.

Just because he isn't in a book doesn't mean that you should delete the page!

FUCK YOU

--Ashen is my hero 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

is this ok?

is it ok to put this thumb|right|220px|Megadeth in 1996, David Ellefson, Marty Friedman, Dave Mustaine, Nick Menza on my user page if I am giving info about Them? DenDeZ 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for your views

Thanks for the comments on DRV regarding my proposal on the Israeli military relations article. I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it publicly yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Show

I need some advice regarding some POV pushing at the The Rush Limbaugh Show. A user refuses to back up his claims in a very hostile manner. Arbustoo 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than discuss the issue the user refuses to address his claims. Arbustoo 05:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image revision deletion question

The first revision of Image:TeacTopCassetteDeck.jpg seems to have been accidentally uploaded by a user and contains an image of their family. The uploader is a banned sockpuppet of a banned user, but just the same I think it would be best to delete the revision. I didn't know the process to use since the whole image doesn't need to be deleted, just the previous revision. Please point me in the right direction if you can't help. And for my future reference, is this something for WP:AN or WP:IfD? Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning

JoshuaZ, hello. You wrote, "Almost complete disagreement with your reasoning above. However, the sentence shouldn't be here anyways since this page is about Behe not Coulter's book, so I'm not going to go into detail about problems with the above reasoning." It seems you agreed that the sentence shouldn't be here anyways. Not sure what reasoning you disagreed with. The reference did not support the sentence as it was worded. I think you would agree with that. Coulter might use the term Darwinism as the sentence stated (I don't know), but the reference only said creos used the term Darwinism. On whether or not the term polemic has negative connotations, I am waffling. Not sure, but if it does, it might have been in appropriate. The reasoning regarding the sentence was sound, as nothing in the sentence, even if it was 100% true, came from the reference as far as I could tell (unless it is a case of a misreading of the reference on my part.) Anyway, thanks for agreeing with my reasoning that the sentence did not belong. ImprobabilityDrive 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I was wrong. Your reasoning was sound. JoshuaZ 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

I have unblocked Jason Gasrich for a trial period. He remains under onerous restrictions, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich. Fred Bauder 01:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked within a day. Hardly suprising. His fake apology: "I apologize for any problems I may have caused before my 1 year ban,"[24] was very telling as far as correcting his behavior.

I agree with you 100%. Getting opinions from those who sought the RFC and ARBCOM is very important. Arbustoo 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

LBU Page

Hi, I hope I am doing this right. I am not totally familiar with the use of the talk pages yet so If I violate, I apologize, I did not know.

Thanks for the intro. I realize that LBU is not an accredited university and am fully aware of the controversy that has surrounded this article. Here are the problems I see with the present article:

1. The information derived from Steve Levicoff's book seems to be more opinion than fact. I recognize that Levicoff is an authority (on what I'm not sure), but the problem is, if you are going to cite Levicoff's work to persuade readers that LBU is a degree mill then you must also cite the authoritive sources he uses to support his claim. Otherwise, Levicoff's claim is empty and mere opinion. Keeping this statement in the article would be unethical and bias. This article should provide factual information about this institution and not an author's opinion. To date there has been no other "authority" claiming that LBU is a degree mill and no documented proof has been provided to substantiate the claim. By keeping this in here it gives the reader a false idea about a University that may be a decent School of learning even though it is not accredited.

2. The claim that "only six people on the staff are listed as having earned a terminal degree from an accredited insitution" are incorrect. If you visit the actual webpage (http://www.lbu.edu/macfacultyandstaff.html) you will see that they have graduates from many accredited institutions such as: Tennessee Temple U, Liberty U, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, East Texas BU, Southwestern Baptist, Talbot Theological Seminary, Wheaton et al. This should be corrected.

3. The Diploma mill article is another problem. The article starts out: "LBU is alleged to match several of the criteria for a diploma mill". Alleged by whom? Where are the references to this allegation and where does their information come from? This should also be corrected. If their are no legitimate allegations then why would Wikipedia soil the name of this institution unjustifiably?

4. What about the info on Robert Morey? What does this have to do with LBU? This article should be on an article about Robert Morey, not LBU. LBU never claimed to have a class on Islamic studies, so why then would this be here and not in it's appropriate place. This is unecessary and excessive information has nothing to do with this institution itself.

5. "LBU has been criticized". Criticized by whom? What legitimate authority has made these allegations and where is his/her documented support for this critical assesment? There should either be a link to the source or this entire piece should be removed as it is undeniably bias in nature and tone.

6. It's obvious that this institution is not accredited. However, it should be noted on this article that LBU is widely respected in the State of Louisiana and in many other well known and accredited institutions (Liberty, Southwestern, Baptist Bible College,et al). It should also be noted that LBU received an honorary proclamation from the Governor of Louisiana and that April 2005 was declared by the Governor to be "Louisiana Baptist University Month". It should also be noted that many prestigious speakers have done commencements at LBU, speakers such as Dr. Jerry Falwell, and Dr Paige Patterson (NOTE: These speakers were also awarded with Honorary Doctorates from LBU). Why is this other information not on this article? It almost seems as if though this article has been designed to not only point out the institutions unaccreditation (which I am not trying to hide) but also to embarass and potentially damage it's long standing reputation. I do not see a problem with noting that LBU is not accredited, however, I do see a problem with avoiding all the information and inserting opinion that is not legitimately supported.

I hope that my info here does not greatly upset anyone (though it probably will), my intention is not to cause any further controversy but simply to find fairness in reporting information. Thanks for your time and I would appreciate it if this problem was fixed. --Cbeech

just to add, and I'm sorry if this is perceived as an insult, it's not intended to be. But I've never heard of LBU (and I grew up in north La.) I only mention this because "widely respected" was used. Maybe in some places, but again, I grew up in N. La, and have lived in La. all my life (I am over 30). also, please sign comments by placing 4 tildas {~ = tilda} after them, like this R. Baley 08:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See the LBU talk page. Arbustoo 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

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 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions to Partnership minyan article

Hi! I updated the Partnership minyan article to reflect a series of articles that appeared in The Jewish State. The series is an interesting one, but it strikes me that the reliable source status of the publication may be questionable and I'd appreciate a second opinion. If you think it best to delete the material I wouldn't object. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! 69.37.11.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), claiming to be Elitzur Bar-Asher, removed one sentence from the article about Bar-Asher's JOFA paper, claiming it doesn't represent the totality of his talk taken in context. Although the sentence is sourced, I'm inclined to allow the delete to go despite the WP:COI issue, since it's a very controversial sentence, it's peripheral to the main article, and it's entirely possible that it isn't representative and hence including that one sentence but not others isn't neutral. I left a message to this effect on User talk:69.37.11.63, also suggesting registering a userid and reading WP:COI for any future edits on this subject. Since I'm involved enough in e.g. JOFA to know who these individuals are, could you do me a favor and review this -- both the edit and my message to the user -- and double-check this? Also, if you would like to add one or two sentences summarizing the article more neutrally, it might be helpful, or it might be better to leave no content in at all about the paper's substance. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The user removed the source reference, so assuming there's no problem simply letting the sentence go, we'd have to revert the edit and take out only the sentence, leaving the reference (for the rest of the paragraph) in. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Query for you. [25] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I cannot tell a lie, it was my comment "However, your comments above remind me of a previous discussion about bullies who portray themselves as victims." that you chided Rbj for, and if that's unacceptable I must apologise. The context was my memory of this point being raised in the RfC on user:Raspor as a genuine psychological or sociological term. So it goes. .. dave souza, talk 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing my comments

You have no right to remove my comments. Please do not do so again as I am not a banned user, SqueakBox 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I strongly object to removing the Brandt comments given that Brandt was unblocked by Jimbo recently and IMO restoring his comments is done with the best intyerests of wikipedia at heart. But for the record I may not have the right to restore DB's comments but I do have the right to restore my own. Your assumption that I am not using common sense is bad faith so please dont make such an assumption as doing so will make your judgement of me wrong. Regards, SqueakBox 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well IMO removing DB's comments isnt helpful at all when his comments in themselves are harmless (no legal threats etc) and useful. Given the restoration of HM and BLP and Jimbo's block/unblock acts I think we should give DB space when he behaves. As I dont agree with your deletion I think a gaping whole is better than wholesale deletion and worse than not reverting the comments. If you delete the comments again I wont restore the DB comments but will restore mine and WAS's. Best wishes, SqueakBox 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive

Hi, glad to see that ImprobabilityDrive doesn't seem to be Gastrich. Would it be in order to suggest to ImprobabilityDrive archiving User talk:ImprobabilityDrive, and cleaning up the user page to remove statements about this episode, before starting again taking care not to resemble well known disruptive editors? Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 08:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea, am I allowed to do it. I still have to change my user page to keep from attracting sockpuppet accusations. I thought I was being funny, but apparently it just attracts these. Thanks for unblocking me JoshuaZ, though I am surprised you did not recuse yourself. Though maybe it doesn't matter. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your comments: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationist socks?

• Recoloniser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pepinos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You should keep an eye on these. Arbustoo 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo, you seem to be on a vendetta, especially with respect to ID. Do you have some evidence? Orangemarlin 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No vendetta despite ID's personal attacks against me. Arbustoo 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw all support and positive comments about ID. Orangemarlin 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd). Orangemarlin 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

belated thanks...

Belated thanks for your warning @ User_talk:71.146.161.212. The guy posted in my talk page, and I was fearing a troll war, but your action seems to have cooled him... Thanks!--Cerejota 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Joshua, I didn't want to go on without thanking you for the beautiful message you left me on my talk page, and telling you it's great to see you again. I apologize for taking a couple of days to reply - I'm kinda swamped with messages, but I feel so uneasy if I don't get back, that I always try and reply! ;) Especially coming from a good old friend like you. I see you're kinda busy these days, so whatever is keeping you IRL, I hope it all goes well, and that you return to us with energy and joy, like you always do. Anyway, thanks again, sweetie, and I'm delighted to see you're doing well. We'll be seeing each other again soon, I'm sure. Have a great weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, JoshuaZ. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive001. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strawman sockpuppet

IMO, User:Chemist3456 appears to be a Strawman_sockpuppet specifically created for Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal. Either that, or someone is putting some time and effort into being a dick. His current biased edits to Astrology seem strangely parallel to comments on astrology in the RfArb. Bears watching [26]. - LuckyLouie 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

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 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Should you have taken part in the discussion before you reverted the edits on the Schneerson page? Or are there specific circumstances when that isn't necessary either in general or for an admin? Gruber76 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the comment on the talk page. Will comment there. JoshuaZ 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Your commandment that I "stop being disruptive" is unfortunate, unhelpful, and absurd. You may well feel certain that Archimedes Plutonium is an important and worthwhile ornament to Wikipedia. I disagree, and I have given my reasons. You ask me to address your criticisms of my position and I have done so, though obviously not to your satisfaction. On the other hand, I have not seen any response to my claim that the entry is non-encyclopaedic, insensitive, and malicious. However that may be, please do not engage in unwarranted personal attacks accusing me of "disruption" merely because you are frustrated that I do not agree with your position. Such attacks run counter to Wikipedia policy, as I am sure you are well aware. FNMF 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure this out - is FMNF labelling his post as a personal attack? Obviously Josh hasn't made a PA, so that must be the case. I don't suppose there's any need for someone to warn him, since he already knows he is making a personal attack if he labels it one. Weird. Guettarda 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think FNMF is saying that it is absurd to think he (FNMF) can stop being disruptive, and to suggest he can is unhelpful and unfortunate. Does he possibly have a disorder which causes impaired cognitive functioning? I think we had an editor a year or so ago with a condition which led to unfortunate situations on talk pages, could this be something like that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Does bear a striking resemblance, no? There seems to be a bit of a martyr complex to go with the impaired cognitive function as well. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some seriously dysfunctional people who edit here. Orangemarlin 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JoshuaZ!

Thanks, JoshuaZ, for rewriting the YER article so that it doesn't read like an advertisement.

Nice going!

I'm happy with the removal of the warning tag now that the article has been made neutral.

This is a true example of COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS in the Wikipedia spirit!

I'll be happy to have Watchdog07 broadcast this VICTORY FOR PLURALISM far and wide outside of Wikipedia.

There now seems to be a language problem or words missing or somethnig from the first sentence of the article.

justice-thunders-condemnation 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Screenshotwithredirectvandalism.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Screenshotwithredirectvandalism.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Very often criticism sections are the best way to organize data and no one has pointed to any policy that actually says they are bad.

I've added some rationale to the template's page. — Omegatron 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubris

I came across this and had to share it. It's classic. "CPU" is "Columbia Pacific University", and you can guess the author.

• The Wikipedia, the biggest cyber encyclopedia acknowledges CPU’s pioneering contribution to distance education and describes its history and its unjust closure. [27]

"The Wikipedia...acknowledges...". That's a remarkable turn of phrase considering he'd written the article and fought any attempts to change it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that made my day. I like the phrase "The Wikipedia". JoshuaZ 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Widget

I didn't think a piece of copyrighted software (at any rate, the image uploaded was uploaded under a FU rationale) fit in the project space. I'm also trying to sort this out on AmiDaniel's talk page. Blast ^{[improve me]} 17.05.07 1233 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory

Hi JoshuaZ. Sorry to bother you. I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but there's a new type (or should that be "kind"?) of creationism over at the Creationism article. It's called "Recolonisation theory", and there's both an entry in the table about it and a new section. My concern is that it may not be notable (Google suggests it isn't). I've broached this with the editor who added it, but they're new here (and probably wedded to the concept) and not used to sourcing, etc. Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could have a gander when you've the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Roman Catholic Church and Father Raymond Brown

I apologise if my recent addition to Fr. Raymond Brown's discussion page included things that you felt where not in line with wikipolicy. I wanted to indicate to Roman Catholic readers that the information being presented on the page was not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about Fr. Raymond Brown. I felt Father's good name was being slandered by some people who sought to say that he was not in full communion with the Church. The Holy See has never said that Father Brown was not in full communion with the Church. I just don't like to see Priests or anyone for that matter being falsely accused. Again I am sorry if you found my post not in line with wikipolicy. God Bless You. Lots of love... (Runwiththewind 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

While I found Run's post to be a soapbox speech, it doesn't seem to fall into the category of material that one is to edit without permission, as on WP:TALK#Others.27_comments. Personally, I find it useful to see to the bias behind an editor's work, so I don't mind seeing soapbox statments on talk pages. I guess I don't much care one way or the other whether that post is there. Jonathan Tweet 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert Warring in Six-Day War

Hi, Joshua, I'm relatively new in WP (November 2006), but I fear that the entire reputation of WP is threatened by POV warring over controversial topics. In particular, I noticed your interatction with Isarig, and I want to alert you to the fact that there is currently a hopeless revert war going on over Six-Day War. Is there anything that should be done to stop this? Is there anything that can be done? Vegasprof 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

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 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism report

Re your comment on my talk page, thanks for the info. I didn't realize I could create a user talk page if it didn't already exist. Learn something new everyday... Roachmeister 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Behe and biology

I do not think I am allowed to comment on the ID page. But anyhow I think he was just being a bit sarcastic there. What he is saying is that biologists need to understand engineering more and I agree with him. ProtoCat 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral comment on Gracenotes' RFA

You may find the clarification here to assist in understanding what Gracenotes meant in Q4; the misinterpretation that he supports keeping 'all links in all contexts' should be moot after this. -- User:nae'blis, not logged in

Plea

Archive this page? I realize you're busy, but surely you can get it to under 100 sections before it hits 300.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive

I will not be contributing to wikipedia anymore so you might watch the unaccredited schools and Gastrich puppeting. Arbustoo 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Valone

Joshua, I am in sympathy with you about the article, but this seems to be a dispute about the neutrality of the article--which is so evidently a problem that I placed a NPOV tag on it, & a delete this likely to be controversial would be a matter of AfD, if you want to press the matter. I often discuss matters of this sort there so I don't want to bring it myself. DGG 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

be careful :) -- I got caught and wasted an hour reading his WPSTO case--he tried to hold a symposium on cold fusion, pretending it was sponsored by the patent office. One of the fun things about patrolling is all the odd stuff you find. DGG 01:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

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 06:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WR link

While you opposed Gracenotes for his stance on attack sites, I just wanted to ask you if in your opinion the link to WR on this very page is really necessary and if so, how you come to the conclusion that GN's opinion of common sense and case-by-case judgement (with which I actually disagree) is different from your own. —AldeBaer 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my oppose comment carefully, what made me change position was the characterization of WR as a "mixed bag" which in my view showed a lack of appreciation for how much damage and how little use there is in the site. Gracenotes attitude about attack sites is nearly identical to mine; Gracenotes attitude about the content of WR is not and I worry strongly that it indicates way too much sympathy for trolls and other forms of disruptive individuals. JoshuaZ 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

Never thought of it that way. I don't know. But it is subpage to subpage... Guettarda 11:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Oh, it looks like the policy has changed since last I looked. As I read it now, you appear to be correct. It must have been quite some time since I checked the policy. McKay 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Harrison

thanks for the message on my talk page. It also seems to be a vanity post looking at the contributor name. Will AfD it.Garrie 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for blocking?

The following IP addresses seem to be engaging in repeated vandalism of other's user pages and comments and might be candidates for blocking.

• 72.196.232.174
• 70.105.36.138

--Filll 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Jewish Lobby

I was surprised at your action there. I'd done three explicit reverts and then quit for the day. But after looking at the report by Jayjg (talk · contribs), I now see what happened. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, he lists an edit at 16:07, 11 June 2007. That was really an edit conflict; I was trying to fix a citation template reference and had it wrong, as can be seen from the next few edits in that period. (I was trying to write {{cite newspaper}} instead of {{cite news}}, and needed a few tries to get that right.)

There's still an edit war going on in that article today, without me, but with Jayjg (talk · contribs), who is insistent that the article must characterize references to a Jewish lobby as Antisemitism. Three reverts in the last four hours by Jayjg (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs), and Isarig (talk · contribs), who tend to edit in tandem on Israel-related issues. Please watch the article for the next few days to observe behavior. I won't edit it for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Page

Notice has been taken RE: personal analysis and commentary on Kent Hovind Bio page. Will not be problem again. Other users at this IP address have spoken to the involved party and explained the neutrality rule on Bios. Shouldn't be a problem again. His response from you RE: anonymous messages were noticed when a few of us logged in to wiki.

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

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 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Famous Streets

I realize that AfD is not a vote. I think, however, that good arguments were presented on both sides and it was pretty much a dead heat. I was very surprised to see that you deleted the article based on that discussion. -Chunky Rice 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If we simply move it to "List of Notable Streets" per my suggestion and fiddle with the lead in criteria, I don't think sourcing will be necessary for the most part. Any blue linked street is de facto notable. Only redlinked streets would need sourcing, and if I recall correctly, there were only a few of those. If you agree with this, I'd be happy to make the adjustments. -Chunky Rice 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I think that using notability as a list criteria is well established in Wikipedia. See Featured Lists like List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) and List of notable brain tumor patients. Also, thanks for userfying it. I'll do my best to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. -Chunky Rice 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brandt

Now that two people say so, I've decided to recuse. Now, could you explain my previous involvement? I honestly can't remember. (messedrocker • talk) 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV#Daniel_Brandt

This is senseless. You're an experienced administrator, and you certainly know this will be a drama magnet. I am astounded you would have a DRV nomination up in less than an hour, and not even attempt to have a discussion on the matter with the closing administrator instead of instantly reporting them. That's common sense. I'm no DRV regular, but it looks like even the first instruction there is "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look" (emphasis in original). It's the 14th nomination; i would have thought by now people would at least try to resolve things without inciting drama, certainly the established editors. Dmcdevit·t 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, you know I respect you as an admin and an editor, but I have to say I find your attitude to the Brandt situation wrong-headed. I appeal to you to accept that you can't have what you want in this situation. Whatever the merits of the article, we have put a human being through 14 AfDs and presumably the same number of DRVs, not to mention the endless talk page debates. No one deserves to be treated this way. The essence of the BLP policy, and everything the Foundation stands for when it comes to living persons, is that we must avoid treating people as though they are simply things for us to write about and discuss. It's fast reaching the point that, no matter how notable Daniel Brandt is, Wikipedia cannot have an article on him, because we've shown ourselves incapable of being adult about it. I ask you please to reconsider and lead the way in doing the right thing by him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I want to commend you for taking the issue to DRV; I am altogether happy that it was an editor who is universally respected who listed the issue, lest the DRV nomination should have been speedily closed as disruptive trolling (which outcome would, of course, have been entirely disruptive and pernicious). It is emphatically clear that whilst some believe BLP to have counseled deletion here and in any event to suggest that we ought not further to discuss the issue, the closure undertaken was not consistent with the AfD debate, and vigilence in defense of community consensus must never be decried. If respect for the consensus of the community as borne out in a well-visited discussion in which all relevant policies were considered is something one "can't have...in this situation", we have a serious problem; if even asking whether appropriate respect has been conferred on consensus is something one ought to avoid, we have absolutely rejected the collaborative spirit that underlies our entire effort here. Your block of Jeff, on the other hand, as I've suggested at his talk page, was, IMHO, quite wrong-headed, but the Brandt issue, I think, earns you many more props than does the Jeff situation demerits. Joe 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joe. And re: earlier comments, we have not put anyone through 14 AfDs, we have put an article through 14 AfDs; and this by individuals who specifically wanted the article deleted, not kept or merged. I am having difficulty following Slim's reasoning above, which seem to be trying to make you out to be the bad guy (i.e., "wrong headed"); but it's clear to me the closure isn't making a whole lot of people happy, perhaps especially because it was done so abruptly. DRV is called for here, and this is the first one (and probably the last) I will be involved with. ◄Zahakiel► 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing BLP

Hi - I'm contacting you because you have blocked me in the past on BLP issues and because you have contacted Mike18xx (talk · contribs) before. Can you say something to him about BLP violations such as the following: [28],[29], [30], [31] These are just examples; he's been doing this all over wikipedia. csloat 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

JoshuaZ, ages ago you said you'd nominate me for RFA. Are you still going to do this?? Anyhow, I've got a practice RFA set up at User:SunStar Net/Requests for adminship/SunStar Net. Feel free to have a go there. It's like an editor review in a way... --SunStar Net ^talk 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:62.203.7.220

Hi, this user is asking to be unblocked (you blocked him as being Brandt). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott

I'm thinking of indef blocking him. This is getting ridiculous. Is there any reason at all that I shouldn't? JoshuaZ 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. Hesperian 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hesp, could you expand on your someone cryptic remark on my talk page? JoshuaZ 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I previously blocked ColScott for personal attacks, but unblocked after being asked to by Cary, who is Volunteer Coordinator for the Foundation. I unblocked only out of respect for Cary's position, and despite strenuously disagreeing with his handling of the issue. I had a fair old crack at him on AN/I, and then, lest I become part of the problem, declared that I had said all I had to say on the matter. Hence my reluctance to engage in further frank discussion with your good self.

If you are considering reblocking, I'm sure Cary would want me to remind you that it would be courteous to talk to him about it first, if you have not already.

Hesperian 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And maybe have a reason to block as well. Wouldn't want to be an abusive yourself. ColScott 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your block log and repeated behavior is well beyond anything that the community should have to stand. You are a waste of our time. JoshuaZ 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry but I respectfully don't agree with you. And here I am, so I guess you'll be leaving then, right? ColScott 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the adverb "respectfully" when you don't mean it. As to your second sentence, not to worry, I'm not in the business of leaving simply because a disruptive user has a temporary respite. JoshuaZ 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my tone or my words unless you are better qualified. I said respectfully because I meant it. I didn't have to say it. I did mean it. And to quote a great film, "You're here and I'm here so isn't OUR Time?"- that is if I am a disgrace to the community and here I am a productive part of the community then you are part of a disgraced community by your own logic. So I guessed you would be leaving, or maybe taking a whole day off like H did. Something like that. And as for the note below this- I am not a disruptive editor nor did I get special dispensation. Go into the history of my talk page and read the whole back and forth. Suffice it to say an admin got out of hand, things got ugly and now they are fine. Subjunctively speaking. ColScott 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So disruptive editors get special dispensations if they know someone? When did that unwritten rule go into effect? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, G_d did it. Didn't you know? Orangemarlin 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't get the message: FedEx must've broken my tablet in delivery. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Received your email. You can email Cary via the "email this user" link at User:Cary Bass or User:Bastique. As for your other question, I don't know. Hesperian 00:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Reverting an edit that changed "theory of evolution" to "hypothesis of evolution" is vandalism? Jinxmchue 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, your point about separating vandalism edits is taken. Thanks. Jinxmchue 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayward working party conclusion

I made sure to specifically note that the working party cleared Hayward of "dishonesty". As for Hayward's claims that he was also cleared of "racism" and "malice", I failed to find any such reference in the report, but I didn't read it cover-to-cover and possibly might have missed it. The words "racism" and "malice" are not used at all in the report, however. Groupthink 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical Articles

ummm, I note and thank you for the comments, but make the following points in my defence; 1 I have not actually reverted any ones edits Yet, 2 I takes considerable time to properly assemble the research and citing to make medical science edits, and to check out others reference citing quality before reverting, no slow war intended (some of us have other lives too), after the kettle calls the pot black! my intention is make qoutes from peer reveiwed articles so no POV is involved, 3 I do resent others reverting my work on spurious grounds, immediately they are posted, without discussion, even to the extent of causing 'edit conflicts' then making accusations as to my intent and throwing mud .4 I suggest you read all of the discssion page headings Herbal Treatments and Other Treatments to get a better picture of this matter. Shortly I will be calling for an arbitration on this matter, If it continues in the same vain, and would appreciate your advice as how to iniitiate this.Jagra 12:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit was expressly in defiance of your warning that you gave this editor. I would ask that Jagra be blocked for vandalizing the article several times. His comments are POV, carry undue weight, and represent junk science. Several editors have checked the references cited, and none of them support his fringe theories. Orangemarlin 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your defense of wikipedia against vandals and fraudsters. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Moving copy to stuff page now. JoshuaZ 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent blocks for COFS and Misou

JoshuaZ, I am very disturbed by your recent blocking here of COFS and Misou (by association). As far as I know they are completely different individuals in completely different countries. Blocking for edit warring, would be one thing. But for you to include unnecessary speculation about meat puppetry is uncalled for.

As for edit-warring, I have looked at COFS's contribution list and I do not see 3+ reverts in the past 24 hours. As blocks for edit warring are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I believe your block is inappropriate and request that you unblock with an appropriate unblock-comment to reflect this.

While I happen to agree that handing each other barnstars lacks taste, it certainly does not qualify for a block. And, if it does, then please show even handedness and block the above editors for the same offense.

using your meatpuppet wording (for editors with similarly strong views) The precedent of meatpuppets handing out barnstars to each other was set here and here.

(NOTE: I am NOT requesting a block. I am saying if one this situation deserves a block, then so does the other).

I respectfully request that you unblock both editors with appropriate unblocking comments to reflect that the blocks were punitive and that neither editor was (currently) edit warring. Lsi john 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know for a fact that they are in different countries. I was told by someone off-wiki that they believed the two editors are in different countries. I have no personal first-hand knowledge of either editor.

It is my understanding that the COS uses a general proxy for internet access. I also have no personal knowledge of that network. Though as a network administrator for several small to large networks, I am very familiar with proxies and how they are used for internet access. It makes very good sense for a company to use a proxy, for numerous reasons: Restrict/regulate access, monitor access, mask locations and real ip addresses for security reasons.

If I came across as curt in my first post here, please accept my apology with the understanding that I was responding to something that seemed very heavy handed and a bit out of line (from my perspective). Peace in God. Lsi john 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

puppets

JoshuaZ, I don't know how familiar you are with the Scientology articles. I'm not that familiar with the article specifics, but I'm quite familiar with the players. If you define meatpuppets as two editors with very similiar and strong beliefs about a subject, then I would submit that you would have to define the two entire groups as virtually all being meatpuppets of each other, with a few editors (very few) falling anywhere near neutral in their respective points of view about the subject.

I've been watching the drama almost since I arrived, as I crossed paths with some of the anti-cult editors who write in both the Scientology articles and in the Personal Growth and Development articles (which they call LGAT).

Regarding Misou and COFS, I think there is a fairly distinct difference in their respective edit summaries and discussion comments.

But, more importantly, I believe the bigger picture should be considered before we (as a community) attempt to micro manage the situation. In my experience, there is quite a bit of anti-COS (anti-cult) propaganda being injected. There are court cases (subsequently dismissed), there were accusations (subsequently retracted) ... which go on and on. While some of it is relevant, much of it serves no useful purpose to the reader, except in the area of providing an anti-COS POV.

Going through the editors' and articles' histories, you will fine numerous WP:BLP and WP:COPY violations that were removed, as well as entire articles being deleted due to nothing notable about the person, (eg: except the lawsuit that was filed against them by someone). As the articles are mostly about COS and COS founders and COS employees and COS contractors, the WP:BLP violations certainly are not being inserted by the pro-CoS editors.

Does something need to be done? ABSOLUTELY. The constant fighting and bickering is ridiculous. The anti-COS editors insert blatant POV wording, which is sourced, and the pro-COS editors simply revert it instead of fixing it. Then the pro-COS editors insert some blatant POV wording, which is sourced, and the anti-COS editors simply revert it instead of fixing it. And, on a rare occasion, someone sticks their head up and provides a calm and neutral suggestion, which quickly gets lost in the tempest.

Something needs to be done, but banning one user, or two users, is not going to solve it. And, we will upset the balance of power, and thus bias the article by micro managing.

just my thoughts. Lsi john 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No real proof these are not effective sockpuppeteers

• Please read take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. All we really have to go on that this is anything but massive sockpupeteering going on, is the claims of the sockpuppets themselves. You may also wish to comment at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS. Smee 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

• Smee this is typical of your bad-faith conclusions. We don't need proof that they are NOT sockpuppeteering, we need proof that they ARE. Based on your 7 blocks for edit-warring, and the most recent block log entry for disruptive editing: "(Disruption by revert-warring and breach of three-revert rule on Large Group Awareness Training)", you are hardly in a position to be casting disparaging comments at other editors.

When you found out that I had used an account 1 time here, you rushed out and created pages and links and categories for me which classified me as a sockpuppet, even though no socks were involved (one account was closed before another was opened). Admins can view the deleted activity for that page (as well as the 'suspected socks' pages and categories), which clearly shows your bad faith conduct. You were sternly warned to stop BITING the newbie and those pages were deleted. Similar pages for COFS should also be deleted. The common IP has been explained. The employment situation has been answered.

You were keeping a nice bad-faith 'log' (for several months) on Justanother's activities, in anticipation of an RfC, until recently when he asked that it be removed from Orsini's sandbox here and here. You (and the other involved editors) were clearly told that was very improper. (Just another example of your bad faith conduct).

You have been trying to get COFS eliminated for quite some time, and you keep coming up short on proof. Eventually someone will see this for what it is and perhaps you will end up being sanctioned for misconduct. If anyone qualifies for a community ban here... well your conduct and edit history speak for themselves.

You seem to share a very strong viewpoint with several other editors, does that make you a meatpuppet?

Are you willing to address your relationship to Landmark Education, in order to explain why you seem to have an anti-Landmark COI POV? Based on your suggestion that COFS must PROVE there is no sock puppeting going on, shouldn't you also be willing to prove you have no personal involvement with Landmark Education? Personally, I don't think you should, but I am applying YOUR RULES here.

Would you care to discuss some of the sources that you add, and your revert history on them?

Are you really sure you want to be leading this charge against COFS with no ammunition? Lsi john 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi JoshuaZ, sorry to bother you but could you please remove my user page (not the talk page) soonest per personal request/speedy G7? I believe another editor is trying to "out" me. I've also put a speedy tag on the page. Thanks - AvB ÷ talk 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Lectonar beat you to it - never saw something gone so fast! You guys rock. :-) AvB ÷ talk 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping

See User talk:DESiegel#Two things. DES ^(talk) 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(correcting link). JoshuaZ 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction

I did not turn up at an article and reinstate an old edit, as you claim. It was a new edit posted and discussed at length in Discussion bit by bit and as no further comment was elicited, I waited a respectful time of one week as i said I would before posting the Edit. Please investigate the source of this allegation for what amounts to distortion of the facts and attempted intimadation, I look forward to further comment before I do reinstate this new editJagra

Jagra, a lot of smart people, myself included, have reviewed your edits. In every case, your references do not refer to what you think. For example, you are pushing this fact that Vitamin B12 can help. It can't. B12 is an essential vitamin necessary for good immune health, but it has no specific effect on HZ. Moreover, you quote sources in all the articles that I've noticed you editing that do the same. You do not appear to read the primary source, which I do. A number of us cleaned up the Herbalism article, because it had a lot of articles that did not actually make the point you want. You are trying to prove a fringe therapy which you haven't. Numerous editors disputed your comments in the discussion pages, but we have all gotten tired of repeating ourselves responding to the same exact comments day after day. It's time to move on. I would suggest either providing peer-reviewed references that actually establish your point (and I would further suggest reading those articles), or move on and find another encyclopedia that allows junk medicine. Orangemarlin 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Conservapedia

I saw your comment posted to User_talk:Aschlafly on Conservapedia. As you might have guessed, Andrew Schlafly, son of the famous and possibly insane right-wing ideologue Phyllis Schlafly, is not the number theorist you're thinking of who, along with Stan Wagon, did work on the Carmichael numbers. That would be Aaron Schlafly. The founder of Conservapedia is named Andrew Schlafly and, to put his (lack of) intelligence into perspective, he believes (among other things) that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Yes, that inquiry was from February. I've learned quite a bit about Andrew since then. JoshuaZ 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)