Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
thanks for the advice and help- i like to do what i can when i'm on here (which isn't very often), but i did just get a new computer which means i will be on more, so i will make an account and try to learn some more 70.176.114.118 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
let's just say i have some very basic expirience here (NOT in a good way)but i am more interested in the project in a GOOD way now- so i will check the page
I agree with your analysis of the picture, and even deleted it (as it has been established as a copyright violation). I believe we should wait a bit, especially if Striver decides to go through with the RfC, before unprotecting. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well again I'm sorry to hash some more old news about JINXTENGU. I submitted this check user report and as you can see they stated that the static IP of the multiple accounts would be blocked for a month. Well apparently he is still able to create accounts through various methods (as you can see on my recent talk page history and this diff page). I have officially submitted him now as an abusive sockpuppeteer with the recent accounts he created. I'm surprised he has not yet realized how pointless it is to continue creating these accounts that will end up getting blocked time after time.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ: I just noticed that you and a few admins had a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#User:IZAK criticizing same-sex marriage on talk page that took place 16-17 November 2006. I would have liked to respond to the comments there at the time, but the page has already been archived, even though the question of editing the article is not over. So I am copying the following response to you, that I had wanted to put in. Best wishes, IZAK 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Response from IZAK
Hi folks I just noticed your comments here and I wanted to respond in my own "defense" to set the record "straight" (good pun, no? ;-}) So here goes: IZAK 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
JoushaZ wrote:
You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient.
Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. --Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia states: "Logging in is not required for viewing pages, and not even for editing them. However, it provides additional features, and in general projects recommend it." 136.183.146.158 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I am being disruptive. I wish to edit in peace and not got annoying emails from the likes of ReasonisBest 136.183.146.158 03:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I am not getting as many harrassing emails now that I am not logging in. The proof is in the pudding. Secondly, not logging in is not sockpuppetry. There is nothing on Wikipedia saying not logging in is sockpuppetry. I also am not being disruptive and doing things like "voting twice" vis a vis different usernames. 136.183.146.158 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I am not in the best frame of mind or best mood. Sorry.--Filll 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the sense I wanted to use that phrase in:
frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous [rule-followers], the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person
The only part I would disagree slightly with, for the gentleman in question, is the phrase "rule-followers". I am talking about someone who makes a big show of his faith and is overly self confident and disdainful of others with other beliefs.--Filll 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Josh, I changed the Mechitza article to say more about Moshe Feinstein's ruling that a Mechitza is required as a matter of Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Feinstein's perspective is quite remarkable. The idea that there is Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai out there that was never identified as such by the rabbis of the Talmud or the Rishonim may prove to be as capable of supporting radical innovation as it is of supporting existing viewpoints. I altered the definition of Oral Torah in the intro of that article (which had claimed that Oral law consists of things not in the written Torah but in the Mishnah and Talmud) to accommodate this concept of a late identification of Sinaitic law. I suspect other articles may need changes to accommodate it as well. There can certainly be an argument made against Feinstein's perspective, and also an argument that it doesn't apply to e.g. Torah reading, but it has had great influence. I would think that any contemporary discussion about whether a Mechitza is or isn't halakhic in origin or application would have to lay the viewpoint out and wrestle with it. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
your edit to WIAJ was good, but now, in reading that third section, I have to wonder if that entire para is phrased right at all. It opens with the idea of how to ID jews who've walked or converted AWAY from the faith. However, it seems to end, again, with the Haredi assertion that only converts TO judaism who 'count' are those living orthodoxly. So to me, it seems the para 'turned left at Albequerque', to paraphrase Bugs Bunny. ThuranX 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your protections of Maryville High School. Homer Croy has a reference. Albert David belongs but I can't find a formal reference (and so am keeping him off). Dale Carnegie does not belong (he moved before graduation). Sadly, the anonymous disruptions are achieving their effect. Americasroof 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what kind of "rabbi" and Torah scholar Adolf Jellinek was (Orthodox, Reform, none-of-the-above, all-of-the above?) The question is important because he had a son Georg Jellinek who supposedly became a Christian, and the article about him says that "Jellinek, the son of Adolf Jellinek, a rabbinical scholar, converted to Christianity." Making it sound that the alleged conversion of George Jellinek is somehow "enhanced" (like a "hidur mitzva - lehavdil) by the fact that he had a "rabbinical father." Anyhow, the portrait of Adolf doesn't look like it would make it into an ArtScroll anything right now :-} In addition, in the List of converts to Christianity from Judaism Georg Jellinek is listed and his picture features very prominently. If anyone has any more information on this, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. IZAK 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ: On 25 October 2006 , User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that you appear to not appreciate my preference to encourage inclusion of all valid and cited schools. I may be much more alone in this preference than I suppose. I guess I find it sad that underfunded schools that just get by, but do play important roles in their communities are not currently considered valid for wikipedia. Maybe that will change someday, as things have over the past few years here in wikipedia. I have read your comments to this end regarding statements made in 2003 by Jimmy Wales. Regardless...keep up your hard work...Best, Kukini 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll have earned your full confidence by the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
Striver got an admin to undelete the two pictures. No actual discussion of the matter took place. You may want to talk to the admin and/or Striver. The idea that one of these pictures is fair use has some minimal plausibility (incorrect but I can see why soemoen might think it) but the idea that both of them are fair use in the same article is laughable. JoshuaZ 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I added another revert to the report. There are more, if you want them.--Vercalos 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems like editors are back to fighting over whether to include the picture. JoshuaZ 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's now a section regarding the article on WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
On your user page you ask blocked users to contact you by email but there is no email address given. What's up with that? This is a dynamic IP so please don't respond to it as I won't be able to see the response. 66.61.147.73 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Aye, but as I said, as far as what i've written, most of it is probably at least borderline quote mining in a more objective sense because I haven't been able to provide the diffs or much context :/. (September 13th in particular was a very hectic day on that talk page) Not that i'm trying to deliberatly misconstrue what people have been writing or anything, its just i'll have to confirm all of this if the case is accepted. Homestarmy 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with {{civil}} but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, kako si, na koji jezik hoces da pisem? sluzili Engleski? -> I assume you are Serbian so I would like to know in what language you prefer I write? But now to the matter, you are calling a simple list pov? Just tell me one thing, where do I repport you and your companions and hopefully get you shut off 4ever? And in what section should the repport be, vandals or what? My sincere regards Ancient Land of Bosoni
You want a reason, okey I didn't registrate that earlier. Hmm let me see, okey got it, serb army soldiers make up about 95% of the war criminals prosecuted by ICTY. Hmm want more?..is that necessary? but well okey: hmm roughly 90% of the civilians killed in bosnia were bosniaks, and srebrenica is the worst killing in post-war europe. Ancient Land of Bosoni
I hadn't finished writing my rationale on talk. Please respond on talk:Juan Cole. Cheers, <<-armon->> 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate how the whole thing is a scandal, but we do have to rely on secondary sources. I do sympathize with those who are having conniptions that a few Messianic Jews have shown up to claim their slice of the wikipedia pie; I can't really tell even if they Christian pretending to be Jews, Jews pretending to be Christians, or some third Way entirely. But if there's one thing to be learned from the history of Christianity, it's that persecuting an obscure cult only validates their world view and gives them notoriety and, after that, you'll never get rid of them. -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wish I could - I read it somewhere (authoritive) but can I remember where? I do monitor a moderate Muslim list here in Australia, just to see what the community responce to various issues is, evolutionary thiest discussion with the creationists dominating. --Michael Johnson 02:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
blocking 68.30.146.202 (talk · contribs · logs), but you blocked much longer than I was going to anyway. —Doug Bell talk 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 07:54 1 December 2006 (GMT).
Yes, I meant to do that. I removed the words "All mainstream", which was, yet again, original research. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This user's block log is atrocious. He was blocked for a month in May for excessive 3RR and incivility and has had 5 more blocks since then (48 hours, 72 hours, two 1 week, and 2weeks). I know you just blocked him for a week, but what do you think about making that indefinite with a post to ANI as an exhaustion of the community's patience case? Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The Moshiach Non-Barnstar | ||
Awarded to JoshuaZ in recognition of his efforts in maintaining interfaith tolerance and ecumenicalism on Wikipedia, even though when Moshiach comes, Daniel575 will probably get to spank him for it. - crz crztalk 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hi, I read your comments on this user's talk page. I recently joined in a deletion discussion for trinity college of biblical studies where one user had written the self promoting article and was resorting to afd vandalism to obstruct the process. Suddenly after a drawn out vandalism battle this user pops up to dispute the deletion of the article. Alan.ca 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It looked like a combination of vandalism and 3RR violations to me; would you like me to remove it? Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not responding in the right place; I'm not extremely familiar with this whole system. What I do know, though, is the difference between comprise and compose. The whole comprises its parts, and the parts compose the whole. So in the case of the sentence in question, the correct term is compose.
"Which specific evolutionary theories (ie, Macroevolution and Microevolution) conflict with their concept of creationism, and would therefore COMPOSE 'evolution', can vary from creationist to creationist."
The theories (parts) COMPOSE evolution (whole). I've changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.199.148 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello JoshuaZ, could you please explain why you blocked user cplot only method of communication on wikipedia. Previously he was blocked indefinatelly from editing articles and other pages but now you have removed his right to even speak out on his own talk page. I would like to assume good faith which is why I am asking you this question prior to go any further. --CyclePat 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Its still up to is to say what source is reliable and how much. Its the metatruth that we cant get around it. Wire pics are not necessary to be UNreliable but arent always reliable either. the AP and Reuters have earned skeptic attitude especially for Israel issues for faking many things lately including the photoshop smoke over beirut the junkyard cars as missle targets now this. Photographer himself was detained for working with the terrorism. Its a verifiable fact SO we can say in the cap, photographer whos detained for working with the terrorism says this is a street with filling of blood from the shelling.Opiner 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I managed to find one wikipedian Hungarian-English translator who seems active in the last few weeks, and left a note at User talk:Marcika. Of course, if this source says the guy did not exist, I would still think we'd want an article on him just to debunk the myth. -- Kendrick7talk 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted Joshua Z to last version by Nielswik.Goin Back 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to go now,(someone else needs the computer). I'll explain more tomorrow.Goin Back 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
He's been doing the same vandalism for a week now. --Tbeatty 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If the nomination is already a vote, then the military stuff up for vote today is using "Chicago style" voting. The person is nominating, then voting "delete per nomination", take a peek. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your reversion of my edit of the Torah umadda article.
Thanks for cleaning up my user page. I think the user involved actually had a legitimate point. The content he complained of in the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah article had POV problems and was unsourced -- in some past flurry of edits it looks like the source it originally had was removed. I replaced with a toned-down version of the original passage and restored the source. FYI, User:Jayrav wrote suggesting freezing the article. I believe that compared to the daily-plus vandalism that strikes articles like Who is a Jew and Bible, this article's problems with POV editors are comparatively mild. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
While 3RR is a very good rule, doesn't WP have a policy of rules are meant to be broken when they are being abused? This user is a sock-puppet of a banned user who had another sock already banned today. I won't edit anymore, but he is disruptive to all that Wiki stands for. Yossiea 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been very upset by accusations by User:Osgoodelawyer that I and User:Mikebe are the same person. He refuses to retract this accusation despite me giving my word that it is not true. In essence he is calling me a liar.
Could you please perform a checkuser on me to prove that this is unture. I have nothing to hide and am prepared to undergo any check to prove this allegation false. I will provide any information you request.
I am a man of princple and being called a liar disturbs me deeply. I can easily be identified from my userid - the same as my email id - and these accusations of dishonesty and subterfuge could seriously harm my reputation. User:Osgoodelawyer refuses to discuss it further and I am left unable to defend myself.Patto1ro 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to you correcting my misperception of NPOV as Vandalism, Sorry will keep an eye out for that in the future.... I thought i was classifying it wrong, but to me it looked like someone was debating the articles wording and changed it without any discussion on the talk page as far as i could see, thank you for correcting me ScorpO 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the prompt response to my email. Unfortunately this is not a dispute type of situation per se. This is a major problem that has occurred as a result of WP's "anybody can edit" policy. Of course, this problem was never intended in this policy, but nevertheless it has occurred. If you foresee having time to look into this more before the end of the year, I would be happy to send you examples of the problem. Thanks again. Mikebe 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I do believe he has violated WP:SOCK by voting with both accounts in AfDs. The votes did not affect the outcome, however, so there is no basis for a checkuser. Similarities in edits (in many cases, both accounts have made the very same edits, including blatantly anti-American ones), and the fact that the two users showed up one day after the other (August 23 and 24). Also, for two users with so much in common, they did not communicate with each other at all, that is, until I suggested that Patto1ro use one account, after which he made an edit summary which spoke directly to Mikebe, to the point of even using his username, which I find very suspicious. As I mentioned to Patto1ro, there is not enough for me to be 100% sure, and not enough for me to have a checkuser performed. As for claims that his "reputation" is at stake, I highly doubt it. I never made the accusation in public, other than comments on his talk page (he's the one who has repeatedly commented on it in article talk pages in order to goad me on). Basically, nobody would have known about the accusation without his advertising of it. I also did not add a suspected sockpuppet tag to either userpage. Basically, I considered the issue at an end days ago. He wouldn't let it be, however, even going so far as to practically spam my talk page with requests for an apology. I finally had to respond saying that I do still personally think that the two are one person. I did not offer an "apology", though, as what he really wants is for me to admit that I was wrong, not an apology per se, and I'm afraid I cannot change my feelings on this issue. I regret accusing him of sockpuppetry before having enough to go to a checkuser. It was not a prudent thing to do. I have attempted to let the issue go, but as you can see, to no avail. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There I've apologised. How about some reciprocation?Patto1ro 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Anti-American edits (that is, removing anything US-related from beer articles) pretty much describes the whole effort of both users. basically, anything that's related to the USA, even if it is well-noted as such, is removed (what should be done is non-American information added to balance). They have a WP:OWN issue, but it's not that they feel they own the articles, it's that they feel that Europe owns everything to do with beer other than American-style lager (so no American opinion is valid). Pay attention to edit summaries as well. Here are a couple clear ones:
The following are just the Beer Judge Certification Program-related edits (which was put up for AfD by Mikebe).
I admit that there's no reason why two people could not have the same opinion on this issue. But the fact that both showed up one day apart and both edit only beer-related articles makes it very suspicious. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I will be very happy to cooperate with your checkuser procedure. Whatever you would like me to do, I will do. In return, I would like it agreed that if the checkuser proves that we are indeed two different people, that Osgood makes a public apology for insulting Ron Pattinson (I suggest that the apology be posted to the Beer Project talk page) and an apology to me (in the same place) for acting in bad faith -- i.e., suspecting sockpuppetry for no other reason than we don't agree with him. Mikebe 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we keep this conversation based on fact, not on hysterical accusations. To begin, you posted on Ron's talk page the following: "You are undoubtedly the same person as User:Mikebe. Since you have voted in AfDs with both accounts, you are violating WP:SOCK. I will kindly ask you to choose one account to edit with. Further use of both accounts may result in me having to take administrative action against you. And we don't want that. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"
Ron replies: "I am not the same person as Mikeb. My name is Ronald Pattinson, born 19.10.1956 in Newcastle upon Tyne. Ask Mikeb what his name is. I can guarantee he and I are different people."
Your reply is: "An intelligent conscientious user would simply admit his error in judgment and turn to editing the encyclopedia with one account. I'd like a neutral point of view to be presented in beer articles which presents both the European and American views, without discounting either side. But if you want to pretend that you are not Mikebe, so be it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)"
You have clearly called him a liar. Ron says he is not me and you respond "if you want to pretend".
All of this by you is without a shred of evidence, just your "hunch". I would like to remind you of WP's assume good faith policy. Why did you instead assume bad faith? I would also like to draw your attention to WP:EQ of which you have violated almost every policy: assume good faith, respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them, avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, etc.
As for "blaming another person", didn't you write this: "I had not even been paying attention to the beer pages until someone pointed out the content dispute he was having with you two."
OK, so you now admit we are two people and not one, as you charged. May I remind you of WP's suggestion: "Be prepared to apologize." After calling Ron a liar and cheat and now conceding you were wrong, why don't you apologise?
You also accuse me of: "In addition, you have also, on at least two occasions, basically said "I'm from Europe so I know more than you, American, I suggest you keep your nose out of real beer articles" to another user." This is precisely what I call an hysterical accusation. We both know that I never wrote any such thing! Because this quote is so far from anything I have ever written, I am having trouble finding what you are referring to. However, I assume it is this: "My friend, I find it very strange that you think you know more than someone who is local to these beers." Do you see any similarity between what you said and what I actually said? Furthermore you conveniently leave out that I wrote that after someone told me I was wrong about a Belgian beer.
And finally, I would like to point out that this entire dispute consists of one single editor who, in your words, was having a "content dispute" with us. So, that brings you to a total of two -- two editors who have unilaterally decided policy for the beer articles. You noted also that you "hadn't been paying attention to the beer pages..." Apparently, neither had Goethean, the complaining editor I assume you referred to, because if either of you had, you would see that we, the rest of the editors had already discussed this very subject here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Isn.27t_Wikipedia_supposed_to_be_an_encyclopedia.3F
Please apologise to Ron for accusing him of lying, please stopping making policy for the beer pages that you have no right to make and please learn the meaning of "assume good faith." Thank you. Mikebe 09:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now heard from Fritz through his admin officer and I think the problem is settled. They may try to add more biographical material but I have advised them this might be copyrighted as it was a copy of his web page, and that I will add some of it in a different form sometime. User:Cdajmk is his admin officer and she was not trying to be devious or sinister and just created her own account to do what he asked her to do. Could you please remove the block on her? I should advise of my possible COI here. I had a 5 month sabbatical in Fritz' group in 1990 and collaborated with him for several years after that publishing 9 research papers. I have very great respect for him as a chemist and none as a creationist (although I note from his book that he accepts the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the earth and is rather weakly saying evolution does not seem right and ID may be the answer). I still do not know what they think is inaccurate about the article, but if they tell me I'll discuss it on the talk page and not try to edit the article in case you think I do have a COI. --Bduke 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember editing this article, nor am I interested in it. Just thought I'd let you know. See you around Wikipedia and have a great day. —EdGl 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello JoshuaZ, this db-bio article has been up for quite a long time. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you please Protect the Chabad-Lubavitch page (and any others you deem necessary). TrachtGut insists on editing that page (and others) in accordance with his POV. A number of his edits overturned the products of previous consensus. I agree that much of the Yechi article and others must be properly sourced. But he is doing much more than removing "unsourced" material. I have asked him numerous times to explain himself on the talk page and seek consensus. He refuses. He is new to Wikipedia, and doesn't understand the rules. Please help. --Meshulam 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Collins really does have a rat tail. I had class with him on Wednesday and I saw it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.37.148 (talk • contribs)
Hey Joshua,
I just checked up on the Pisgat Ze'ev back-and-forth, and I'm pretty sure that the place shouldn't be classified in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict any more than other parts of East Jerusalem. As for categorising it as an Israeli settlement (despite the definition - which I believe should be updated), I understood the action on Hamas (being categorised as "designated terrorist" instead of "terrorist") and elsewhere to be reflective of a convention where we make mention of a disputed aspect of an entry without categorising it as such. As Pisgat Ze'ev was annexed by Israel in 1980 (East Jerusalem, Jerusalem Law) and is administered as part of Jerusalem and not considered a settlement by Israel, I feel that it is sufficiently disputed that mention without categorisation is sufficient. Contrast with everywhere else currently in the Category:Israeli settlements, essentially any Israeli area in the West Bank outside Jerusalem, recognised by Israel as an "Israeli settlement." I'm in a [paused] back and forth on Talk:Har Homa on the issue, and I'm working towards getting a clarification of categorisation criteria. Well, let me know in any event. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. If you'd like to relist any of the discussions so they can be conducted in an atmosphere of good faith, I have absolutely no objection. You may also wish to discuss merges with the user who created those articles (if Innosense is notable but its members aren't, merge/redirects would be easy and clean solutions). But User:MinervaSimpson was clearly acting in bad faith with those noms, and the deletion process isn't there for vengeance. (FWIW, I'd have voted delete on four of the five articles myself.) | Mr. Darcy talk 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it uncommon for only some of the people in a band to have pages, and others not? I have created articles for three of the five members of innosense. (They're the three that have come to question.) As for the other two however, they have done things after disbanding. One, Mandy Ashford has been in several publications, and the other Nikki DeLoach has had notability even prior to Innosense. It may be my sight OCD of all or nothing; but since two of the members look notable enough, could that be support of the other three? (Not trying to sound biased.) I could also try to do further research on the other three. (I may have luck with Amanda Latona at the very least.) My only concerns are my results being fancruft... -WarthogDemon 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I reverted you, I don't intend to discourage you from continuing. I just want us to be pathologically careful to be extraordinarily careful on all WP:BLP situations, particularly when the article has been under dispute for quite some time. Unfortunately, I am out of time tonight, so I can't help more, but tomorrow I will drop in and see what I can do myself.--Jimbo Wales 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. It means a lot to me. :) As I am sure you can imagine, these are touchy issues and I really appreciate when people stick their necks out to help.--Jimbo Wales 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you. ;-) Though funnily (word?) enough, the same thing happened around when I hit 10 too! :) -WarthogDemon 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you consider this vandalism, this is your "talk" page, not your myspace page, so I feel entitled to say things to you, regardless of their positivie or negative perception. That said, I would like to comment about a message you left for me. You seemed to have jumped into a discussion in its late throws and assumed yourself to be right. You undid quite a few of my edits that had nothing to do with what you disagreed with, and then threatened me with your adminstrative prevliges(sp) for reverting my edits you seemingly blindly removed. I am not saying this to vandalize you, or your page, or anything of that sort, but I feel it is appropriate you be responded to for having done such things, and for what appears to me as an abuse of your power. Thank you, DerwinUMD 00:08 December 11, 2006 (UTC) P.S. sorry for posting on your page, ment to do that here (thought I was here).DerwinUMD 00:16 December 11, 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I'll do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I would like to thank you very much for your fairness in handling the matter of Osgoodelawyer. A similar issue has come up again and I would be very grateful if you would simply add your voice to the RFC. Briefly, it is about having only US comments about a non-US beer, despite the fact that other countries make a similar beer. You can comment here. Thanks. Mikebe 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshauZ: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (2nd nomination). Thanks. IZAK 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sound like a good idea to me. Any idea how we can get more users involved? ==Taxico 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
An RfC was already filed. That's how I got to the page. There seems to an informal mediation here, but I don't know if it has been accepted. ==Taxico 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The edit on Dembski was to make you aware that I see that the ID argument is the focus of your and monk's edits on the biographies of scientists. I think that we can all agree that ID is a bunch of malarky. It doesn't make you or Monk intellectuals to crusade about telling everyone that creationism isn't real. *However* there happen to be A VERY FEW scientists who hold those beliefs and they should be FORGIVEN for having those odd beliefs because their net contribution has been quite positive. Please pass this on to your friend monk and whoever else.
I put this to you after I have already pointed out that the entire religious belief thing is irrelevant to the article about someone's contribution to science.
People's religious beliefs are relevant when we are a) trying to make general biographies not just list their scientific accomplishments and b) are well known for their religious beliefs (although both Schaefer and Demsbki would argue that what they are doing in those regards is science). There is absolutely no way one can argue that Dembski has done anything at all notable except for his intelligent design work- are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article on him for that reason? Finally, please see WP:ARCHIVE and consider archiving comments rather than blanking them- this will make it much easier for other users if they want to later read an exchange to read what happened- at minimum, blanking a section when you are still discussing it is both rude and inconvenient since it forces anyone replying to start yet another section to reply. JoshuaZ 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm blanking it because I'd rather talk about it on your page. And no someone's religion isn't relevant when that person is notable for being a scientist and not a theologian. --mathchem271828 Suppse you were well known for being a race car driver. Would your religious beliefs be part of your biography? No. Here look at this race car driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Andretti
And yes Dembski's article should be removed if he isn't notable as a scientist.
Okay, I am not sure if these biography guidelines are written in stone or if they are up for debate. It seems that some of these guidelines are subject to revision. Also, I cannot stress how incorrect you are about someone like Schaeffer's religious views being more prominent in the public eye than his science work. Mathchem271828
Re Google searching for Schaefer, are you aware that scientifically he always seems to call himself "Fritz Schaefer" or just "H. F. Schsefer III", while for his religious lectures he is billed as "Henry F. Schaefer III"? I'm not even sure he does it consciously but he does it. Note for example, the references I added to articles in the volume of Journal of Physical Chemistry A dedicated to him - it is "Fritz" all the way, not a mention of "Henry". --Bduke 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
WOW! All the other years do that. It was fine for two weeks but now its not? Wow. forget wikipeida. All you 'admins' must get really board since you don't have a real life.
Later. BTW put the redirect back, or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupsportz (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 December 2006
I haven't been able to figure out an answer to my question so I'd thought I'd ask you, the only admin I know. Does wikipedia take LaTeX input and parse it or does it use MathML only? Thanks! Mathchem271828 19:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
:: okay tanks, I'll give that a try. Mathchem271828 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You said: A checkuser was performed on the two users in question. They seem to be unrelated
Hi Joshua: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
Please consider taking our survey here.
This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.
We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Our university research committee approved the project.
Thanks, Corey 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua: Latest chutzpah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In reverting homeopathy you write "Lee, you've already have multiple 3RR violations don't make this another one." I just wanted to comment that the threatening tone of your comment is inappropriate for an administrator, particularly one who is, himself, enthusiastically engaged in reverting the article in question. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua: I received the following message, perhaps you can assist. Thanks. IZAK 10:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.<! Jedermann 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:
Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's his latest sockpuppet address: 169.132.18.248 Can you please do something about it? Thanks. Yossiea 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Watched. Traveling some? Gonna have fun in your vacation? - crz crztalk 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I was the third editor to call his edits vandalism not the first and I have written to 2 of his accounts explaining myself, which is more than you have done, or those other editors. What on earth are you criticisiong me for. you've opicked the wrong chap, go and hassle the sock, SqueakBox 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ: Question: What should be the name for the Shalosh Regalim: the Three pilgrim festivals or the Three pilgrimage festivals? Please see the discussion at Talk:Three pilgrimage festivals#Name. Thanks you. IZAK 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
See: Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments. Thanks, IZAK 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi JosshauZ: Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts#Religious figures: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat.<ref>Lewis (1984), p. 100</ref>" I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi JoshuaZ. You had asked me to notify you if I did an RfA. Wanted to let you know that I did, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Need some help here with some pretty clear violations of WP:V. Plus, the editor over there who has essentially taken the position that the rules are annoying and that they don't apply to him acts quite a lot like Daniel575 used to act. I don't know what should be done about that, but I figured you were the right person to talk to about it. --Meshulam 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has basically been rewritten and each line is sourced. This current debate is put up by another admin (I think) to cover issues with sourcing. Since you weighed in before (and are an admin) I thought you'd be interested in this latest one. --TrollHistorian 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You have to come at their level, as we are all at their level. You can't act snooty, as we tend to. Even I do. But I realize because of an experience with a Christian, or just seeing the video game, "Left Behind: External Forces", has driven him to believe that Christians are about hate. I try my best not to, but its hard. Sadly, you can often find me making a bad example of Christianity, like when I get involved with politics, and defending others. I want to explain this to you, I want people to know this. We will never stop all violence and hate, but we've got to try. I may not make sense to you or many other people. I'm not the smartest person, that's for sure, but I try to help those who got a bad impression on Christianity, so that they don't want to rid the world of it. My Lord tells us to share this good word to others, and that's what I'm trying to do.
In fact, I am excited that I had did this, and got a message from him. You can check it out. That's what I was talking about, I made an impression on him. That's what Christians are supposed to leave on people. I don't care if he or anyone else reads this. I'm not embarrassed. I did what my Lord has asked of me. -Yancyfry
Thanks. I sent you mail. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Evolution Award | ||
The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to JoshuaZ for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. dave souza, talk 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? Still a hot topic! ..dave souza, talk 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dave (moving award onto stuff page). JoshuaZ 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Henry F. Schaefer, III is a very good scientist. Does he subscribe to biblical literalism? biblical inerrancy? Does he work in an area where these beliefs overlap with his research? (obviously not). And I asked for 5, currently living and preferably currently active. --Filll 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ-- You removed my addition to this article because you said it constituted "Creationist POV" (I am guessing that Wesley Elsberry told you this and you believed him.) It is not creationist POV and another editor (Serephine) concurs with me that the definition of "information" needs to be elucidated to return my sentence to NPOV status. I have done this with an authoritative statement from Crick regarding the definition of biological information. Please also read my support for inclusion of the added sentence on the article Talk Page. Please add my sentence that you removed back into the article. Thanks. Afdave 12:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) David W. Hawkins
Hi! In Talk:Conservative Halakha#Mamzerut, I made claim that some previous edits were WP:OR on grounds that the Talmudic basis cited for procedurally abolishing mamzerut wasn't the actual basis given in the Conservative responsum involved. This seems to be a source of extensive conflict about this content because some editors have quoted from the Teshuvah involved (which appears to lay out a theory as to when the Conservative movement can and/or should abolish Biblical law) as "evidence" that in a pinch the Conservative movement sometimes will behave in a Reform-like fashion. If you believe that I am incorrect in the specific factual claim that the responsum doesn't contain and/or rely on the material cited, please let me know. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The ultimate point of the list I created above, which is still far from complete, is to make it a featured list. You will note that it is generally referenced, which the List of religions is not. I expect to be gathering additional data for it over the weekend, and when that is accomplished I think that we will be better able to see more closely what the final result will be. In time, it probably will be broken up into subpages as the other list is already. I also believe that several denominations mentioned in the book referenced may not yet have their own pages here, and having the list available and updated regularly as I encounter pages will let me know which of them don't. I am in the long and laborious process of assessing all the articles for projects which do assessments which are listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion page, and ensuring that the pages of all the faiths which do have their own pages are listed there as well. You will note that it is not yet linked anywhere, so it probably isn't much of a distration yet. Alternately, I could move it into userspace and assemble it there. In any event, I think we might wait until the rest of the data is gathered before making any conclusions. Badbilltucker 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Joshua, can you look in at a current deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Saul Kaiserman. I think you are in a better position to evaluate the new information offered there than I am. GRBerry 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey JoshuaZ, sometime back in the late summer last year, there was a AfD on the Quackpotwatch article and the decision was to merge with Quackwatch article. I'm not sure if there is a way to find it, but Fyslee will certainly remember. I am concerned about some of the others as well, but I'll look at them one at a time as I am relatively new to this article, trying to save Fyslee and Ilena some pain. --Dematt 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your question in that location. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally misread the article in the Wikipedia Signpost. I self reverted my edits to the spam templates excluding the one about all the sites using the MediaWiki spam blacklist. Jesse Viviano 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha...I have just been concerned about being a tad to overzealous in indef blocking. It seems like I have had to do a LOT of it lately. Thanks, --Kukini 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Joshua. Actually I have edited lots of pages on Wikipedia. I don't use a username for a reason... so vandals won't follow me around and screw with all of my edits. With an IP # that changes ones edits don't show up when clicking on the IP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.246.203.114 (talk • contribs).
...but the comment appears to also have been chopped off at the end. Perhaps you were using an external editor? --BenBurch 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
... at all. LOL. At least I was laughing until I noticed the amount of crapflooding going on right now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is at DRV per your note at closing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
excellent block summary, next we know you'll be joining the rouge admin cabal :o) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing the last sentence of the “Dawkins rant” may make the deceitful creationists look, well, less deceitful, but it is unfair to terminate it there without explaining why it is not deceitful. I’m sorry if you don’t like what is written in the book, and you would rather the passage ended in that way, but it makes no sense if it does.
I’ll leave this out though, if it offends you: “Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.” I’ll just leave in the explanation as to why it wasn’t deceitful (the creationists honestly believing the question couldn’t be answered)Simpsons contributor 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're having trouble with 3RR, you might try using the talk page. Someone advised me recently about the importance of building consensus. ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am Nogster. I forgot my password for that account, and don't have any way of getting it back. If you're an administrator you may be able to help me do that? Noogster 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Joshua, I understand much of what you do is AGF. As an admin you have to. But I'm really beginning to wonder if VfDing Messianic articles is helping anything. It certainly wastes time that could actually be spent improving articles - perhaps a good reason why I haven't responding to a criteria request for the page you nominated. I am the only regular Messianic editor on WP at this point. You and others have forced the rest away with a constant barrage of POV and paperwork so as to render any real progress as meaningless. At best nothing is being made worse, at worse, you and other editors by VfDing articles are simply depriving the public of valid, relevant, and useful information. This has become an undeclared information war, one in which I refuse to participate in. I have more important things to do than watch for VfDs because the number of Messianic editors has dwindled to no less than my occasional visits to wikipedia in looking up things not even related to Messianic Judaism. As an editor, I would ask that you help defend these articles. It may be contrary to your religion; but I ask in all fairness that fairness be given - as this current spat has caused me to withdraw entirely from Wikipedia, and now Wikipedia is losing its last Messianic editor. Shalom. Go delete everything. I don't care any more. Thanks for what assistance you did give in maintaining a fair standard. This is just far too much work to do it all. inigmatus 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you've made a couple minor edits to both the AstroTurf and FieldTurf articles and I would like to ask for your help in neutralizing the marketing speak on both articles. I myself have a COI and have made it known to be as transparent as possible (I work for the AOR for AstroTurf, though I'm not editing on behalf of the agency or Astroturf). The obvious problem is that if I make any edits to neutralize the POV of the FieldTurf article regardless of how neutral my edits are, 1.) The user Coz reverts then immediately and 2.) My COI is called into question. I've repeatedly requested for neutral editors to neutralize the FieldTurf article where they feel appropriate and I am more than willing to offer my knowledge of the industry to clarify any questionable claims. Thanks for helping out if you're able. Ben 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
To type the relevant section. See Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution#Selective_quoting_on_part_of_John_Richard_Schrock regarding Matsumura|1998 and how others are selectively quoting her article. (It is complicated, so the selective quoting might be forgivable). StudyAndBeWise 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They have a less than brilliant reputation for quality and with the amount of stuff the foundation could potentialy sell it could likely get a better deal elsewhere.Geni 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning this: Over two months have passed now and I have not gone anywhere near any circumcision related article. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review a possible unblock of user:Subversive element, or at least consider talking to Jayjg about it. After all, "being disruptive", "waging a war" and "harassing other users" were not the only things I did through that account. 84.44.169.181 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to run again. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the supportive nomination. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is garbage, and should be deleted. However, given the unlikelihood of that happening I'm focusing on the POV-pushing, original research, and dishonest editing of one specific editor, in an area that I'm actually familiar with. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! With regards to your offer, I must regretfully add that I have to decline a RfA nomination for the present. The reason is obvious. For the last couple of weeks, I have not been editing significantly to this project due to the lack of time and work commitments (I am working a 12-hour job). If I were to run for a nomination for the fourth time, it will most likely be a failure again. As you are well aware, the process of a RfA nomination is quite unforgiving. Of course, I am interested in becoming an admin, but deep down inside, I know that I would fail another nomination.
I wish to thank you for having faith in my abilities. I would also like you to know that I will most definitely carry on contributing to this project and hope to increase the level of commitment in the near future. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Popping in over at Steven Dufour and tell me if I am crazy. You'll want to see the version prior to my edits here Obviously I am disturbed by this article and give my reasons on the talk page. Anyhow, I would like to get an admin's opinion/guidance on the subject. I feel inclined to blank the entire article but I think engaging an admin for guidance will bring better results. The irony is it's about a guy who is a Wiki editor whom I have had more than one dissagreement :-) To me it is just wrong to write an poorly sourced (if you can even call those sources) mostly all orginal research article about a living person and THEN talk about whether the subject matter is notable or not. And if you do not have time to check it out can you point me in a direction? Cheers and thanks. Mr Christopher 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You've got mail. Khoikhoi 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
YOu blocked me for reverting vandalism. Now it is vandalism when an admin and two editors seeminly come to a comprimise and add content about Israel see Evidence of admin jayjg edits to Racism where he allowed the content and modified the content for inclusion, this was there for 1 month. Now an editor came in and deleted the entire thing (again). I reverted. Then the above admin, who i believe has a conflict of interest and is blocking us with a [WP:POINT] changed his stance, (see his last comments on the talk page). He didnt say this when he (i stress he) modified the content to reach a truce. But now he has come back with the old POV. This person is an admin. I must ask you to review the situation. I strongly suggest getting people who are not close to this topic in anyway shape or form to review what is going on and bring balance. I have seen no where in the rules of wiki where they can be one set of criteria for Israel and another set for Trinidad, Chile et al. This is the real issue i have, the threshold for adding valid sources is set so high nothing will come of it. Also see the Israel section on racism and ask yourself how do you think that looks to the outside world? Does it reflect balance and honesty? Maybe you are Jewish maybe you are Muslim, this issue has nothing to do with that and we must rise above this and be admins and editors and act with one standard across the board.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You stated on my talk page, which warrants substantive response:
Cyber, you are a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I suggest you spend a few months writing articles before you attempt to get involved in policy-intensive, controversial issues like general BLP concerns.
Those are awfully big yet very empty words from someone who highlights his most prideful primary authorial BLP contributions as stubs. Are we supposed to presume that you are an expert on WP:BLP based upon this record?
But do feel free to go through all the BLPs where I am the primary author. I will certainly return the favor of the scrutiny, of course, if you decide to take me up on this. You might start with Mary Pride, which I started and of which I am primary author. While citation is not the sole concern of WP:BLP, you will note how each and every statement there is cited, and many are multiply cited. You will note how it is, in total, a model example of an article per WP:BLP.
The proof is in the evidence. Where is your evidence?
Based upon your own surficial application of your apparently deficient understanding of WP policy on WP:BLPs, as evidenced at my talk page on the dates near the date of this post, it appears the WP community actually might have cause for concern in the inverse - not with me, but with you.
But in your attempts at discrusive control, I am the bad guy, not you, right? Yet, in point of fact, here we have an admin (you) who has never once written an exemplary BLP, and who exhibits a novice understanding of the policy, who is nonetheless trying to bully his morally empty weight around to an editor who has written exemplary BLPs and, certainly commensurate, actually understands the policy in depth.
No surprise. Many WP admins are very well known in the press and various blogospheres for helping make WP a source 1st graders cannot cite. Might I cordially suggest you have a look in the mirror if this fact troubles you?
CyberAnth 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you are an admin? You migth want to have a good read of WP:BLP. You might want to have a look at the Bill Nelson talk page and see WHY it violates NPOV to charaterize a person's views as you are inserting into the article. CyberAnth 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I left your change in tact, but disagreed with it on the talk page. I don't think it is POV, it might be OR, but interpretting OR too strictly is problematic. Please see discussion and comment. StudyAndBeWise 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I couldn't unblock if I wanted to. I'll just have leave it up to whoever is next to see the request to decide. Personally I don't think the choice is too clear, since the whole thing seems pretty complex. --Wildnox(talk) 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I removed this link from the Niddah article. It's actually not nontopical -- the survey is on Niddah -- and I'm not sure if I was correct to have called it SPAM, but clearly it's not an informative link. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for those kind words; they help -- Avi 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's your call to unblock him, and that's fine, but I would like to point out that he's also been disruptive on the MEMRI article. Hopefully, he will calm down. <<-armon->> 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Joshua. I have a big question about Wikipedian Bureaucratship. But I know Wikipedian who is Bureaucrat is also Wikipedian Administrator. But I have been little bit confused on between Administrator and Bureaucrat. Is Bureaucrat wikipedian special wikipedian? In Wikipedia, There are many administrators even more than thousand wikipedians. In my opinion, about 50 wikipedians are Bureaucrat. What is bureaucrat's job in Wikipedia? Does Bureaucratship needs supports by other wikipedian as adminship? Could you please explain Bureaucratship just briefly? I hope you can understand my questions. Anyways, Please respond in my talk page. Thanks. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
GordonWatts (talk · contribs) -- a prime POV pusher if there ever was one -- is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent -- just the latest in a series of convoluted and tireless rationalizations can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk · contribs), who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).
Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.
P.S.: I'm going to leave this message on a few other admins' pages (JzG, Musical Linguist, maybe a few others, I dunno), and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, never heard of it; that's going on my watchlist. My reply to IZAK was an edit conflict with yours; I didn't read your comment before I pasted mine in again. I'm getting pretty sick of that DRV at this point though. I don't want to sit through any more sniping. I pointed inigmatus toward Mediation and the suggestion was dismissed. If it's going to be all yelling and no dispute resolution, then I'm going to deliberately lose interest in what becomes of their feud. — coelacan talk — 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem ya hoser! I was just having a bit of a laugh... hm, I guess I should sign out when I do that? (I'm on a school IP) haha lol just jokes I don't normally do that sort of thing here... but I just had a sudden compulsion. Sorry man!
HOLY SHIT are you just patrolling all of the pages that I make here? RC versailles and pwnage and all? this is frustrating
I always just click random page and then look for red links so I can make new pages Maybe if it doesn't really exist, you should remove all references to it from all other wikipedia articles.
good day
Interlaker 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing my changes to stand and reverting yourself after reading the full article. I spent a good deal of time including and tabulating information from multiple sources that would have varying viewpoints on Creationism in general. For instance I think you would agree that People for the American way would not exactly be a bed fellow with ICR, but they added history and perspective that had been lacking. I tried to make sure that all sourced information was reinstated and I have also tried to use the talk page extensively -- one of the few in this topic who does so. Bbagot 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.