User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Debatus again

Joshua, when we talked last, you recommended looking into Meatball wiki. I did so, and pursued some avenues there, but nobody has responded to my questions. Do you have any additional suggestions for bringing awareness of Debatus to the wiki community. Are there any avenues within Wikipedia that can be taken? You'd mentioned that I should tap into the Georgetown Wikipedian community. How would one go about doing that? Loudsirens 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a search through user space for Wikipedians who Georgetown affiliations might help. A quick search turned up three active editors: User:Arcimpulse, User:Postdlf, User:AppleRaven. They may be willing to help out or knwo of more people. Beyond that I can't think of anything. JoshuaZ 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOG removal

JZ, anti-semitism is the hatred of Jewish people. The noticeboard is about the religion, strictly. - crz crztalk 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

4.250

No email. Try being creative.

I just looked at it again and the unsourced Wikipedia paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. More detail is available at Talk:Avian flu. WAS 4.250 08:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

2 quick q's

JoshuaZ,

I haven't really watched Wikipedia talk:Places of local interest. Does it really reflect consensus? Does it supplant the Schools discussion?

Thanks--Ling.Nut 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To the first matter - I'm not sure it reflects the prevailing consensus in that it didn't seemed to be advertised very heavily on the normal policy locations (especially the village pump) before it was marked as a guideline. Furthermore, a glance at any days AfDs will show that the guideline is more often ignored than anything else. I am in fact tempted to unmark it but will refrain from doing so for now. As to the second issue, given that schools have had a separate discussion, I'm not sure whether it would supplant it. My instincts would say no simply because we have a lot of school interested editors who seem to view that as arguably separate from general local concerns. JoshuaZ 21:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again I confess to not having studied it carefully. And am probably not going to... but each passing day the consensus tag is there adds credibility to its claim that it reflects consensus. Maybe.. I duno rather than removing the tag, it should be straw polled again, or removed pending advertising the debate somewhere... I dunno... but I have tests Monday and Tuesday and have already spent too much time on Wikipedia. ;-) --Ling.Nut 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See, they're quoting WP:LOCAL and saying that deletion is off the table. Told you so. --Ling.Nut 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to where this is occuring? JoshuaZ 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Schools3. Unless I misunderstood. I am taking quick looks while studying. --Ling.Nut 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Concerning Doll Graveyard

Thanks for clearing that up. Seems a user decides to tag as retaliation and I try to remove it, forgetting that according to wikipedia policy, I can't. That'll teach me to remember what I post. Thanks again! -WarthogDemon 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt article

As you can see from my history I only recently started adding or editing on Wikipedia. From what I've read it appears that you have a great deal of experience. I hope that this is the proper way of contacting you about the Brandt article.

I have two questions:

1) Although Brandt's website is on the "blacklist," I noticed that there are already links to his site in his biography. Would it be more appropriate to find a way to include the links rather than the asterisks that I used to replace his URL?

2) His biography has a theme showing his "criticisms." Based on his comment posted on Slashdot should a new heading be created titled "Criticism of Slashdot?"

Thanks, - Drew

Thanks for taking the time to discuss wiki policies with me. My point is that the article was already making value judgements because it said that Jayson Blair "fabricatesd" (i.e. intentionally falsified) news stories. I'm not sure how saying he conned people is any more POV (your points about redundancy however were valid). As for assuming good faith; I agree its counter productive to discuss personal agendas, as it just makes users defensive. Timelist 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there are independent sources that say he conned the NY Times, but I see your point: "Conned" sounds more negative, and we should only report such judgements in the form of directly cited quotes, not statements of facts. Timelist 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My Username

You said:

I strongly suggest you change your username per WP:USERNAME which forbids inflammatory usernames. JoshuaZ 07:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what's inflammatory about my real name and year of birth? Drew88 07:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. 88 stands for 88? I was indeed born in 1988 and I'm 18 years old. How is the number 88 related to my topic of preference (whatever my topic of preference is)? Drew88 07:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is merely a theory, but some people might mistake the 88 part for a racist acronym 'HH', which stands for 'Heil Hitler' ADL.org page: 88. Keep in mind any racist symbology in a username is a good indication of a vandal-only account, which may explain the mistaken trigger-happy warnings. I'm sorry you caught the flak you did, but I hope you don't let it slow you down in your editing Wikipedia. E. Sn0 =31337= 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

E. Sn0, almost all of Drew's edits are to nazi related topics. It is very hard to believe he doesn't know what it stands for. JoshuaZ 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith without evidence either way. E. Sn0 =31337= 07:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly did not know what 88 stood for. And none of my edits are related to nazi-related topics, unless of course, you consider anything race-related to be so. Drew88 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear JZ (JayZ? *snicker!*) is correct: Your edits do seem to have a preponderance toward nazi-related topics, such as Holocaust Denial and right-wing authoritarian regimes. There is still reason to suspect you. E. Sn0 =31337= 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Check his user page. He has a commentary on there that may be considered inflammatory. E. Sn0 =31337= 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Drew88 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message

I'm sure KC doesn't require knights to come to her aid. Regards Arniep 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, look, KC completely unreasonably threatened to block me for marking an account as a sockpuppet when it has been agreed that the person in question was part of a campaign to place false information in Wikipedia to promote an obscure actor and the student film he was appearing in. I had put a large amount of time in researching this and putting a stop to it and the fact that KC just jumped in threatening to block me and accusing me of harrassing one of the very people involved in it without even talking to me was completely unacceptable. She previously had followed me to an obscure page which she had never edited and proceeded to take completely the opposite side straight after a previous dispute. It is therefore completely unfair to say that I have no reason to suspect ill will when she posted a message asking me to archive my page when she has shown such hostility to me in the past. Arniep 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I never said I would block you for marking a proven sock as a sock. I told you quite clearly that if you continued harassing the editor, who came to me for assistance, then I would block you for harassment. You edit warred over adding that sock template, and although told twice to do so, never requested a checkuser. That wasn't "agreed upon" nor was the editor in question making inappropriate edits. This has all been covered already.[1] Secondly, I never "followed you" anywhere. You are grossly misrepresenting the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ParadoxTom

The problem seems to be that no matter how many times I try to explain it, he's adament in insisting that removing the POV templates is vandalism, and as far as I can tell simply won't change his mind no matter what :/. I've told him that sure, people aren't supposed to remove the templates when you've actually brought up a dispute, (And he has, and i've supported him somewhat) but even when I show him precisely the line which proves that removing the templates isn't vandalism, he just won't believe me. Homestarmy 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mozzarella stick

Fair enough. I was too quick with the revert, but I didn't like the personal attacks. thanks for the quick block. bikeable (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Mozzarella stick

Hi... Just a heads up: prevented from vandalizing Wikipedia namespace articles, he's now taking to vandalizing his own talk page, blanking the warnings and attacking you. --Rrburke 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Josh, I realize you are busy irl, but did you realize you have over 130 sections on this page? Archive, please. At least the older stuff. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for adding unrelated stuff onto this, but I just left a message way up the tree, and KillerChihuahua's (not mine) will show up on your "you have new message/last change".. so the message was "Told you so!" :-) People are saying that WP:LOCAL takes deletion off the table, and that it supercedes the Schools proposals.--Ling.Nut 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sisyphus...

HI,

Am feeling burned out on talk pages (see Sisyphus). Whenever I have time, I want to work on articles, templates, a planned new WikiProject, etc. Please leave a message on my talk page if anything monumental happens. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Science/philosophy

Thank you; I stand corrected. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my user page (for clarity)

You do the same, when someone edits, ask before you revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) JoshuaZ 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: my email

Done and done. Fire away. -- Kicking222 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Done for the moment. Let's hope your email makes it through the at least three spam filters it will have to pass. I keep it disabled normally because I don't always access my email at the same time as Wikipedia, so talk postings are faster. GRBerry 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your postscript, I am thinking about it. See User talk:GRBerry#Are you interested in... and the immediately following section. I also asked Tony Sidaway for input on conflict handling, but he's inactive enough that I'll probably ask someone else to input on that. GRBerry 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Not even countries are inherently notable"

Am I right in thinking that this is an accurate statement because nothing is notable until it generates media or scholarly coverage? If there's more to the story, please let me know, since I've seen the comment in a couple of school AfDs and it seems to come in for a sarcastic response. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To some extent yes. However, there have been microcountries with some small amount of media attention that have been deleted. One of them off the coast of Florida was recently deleted and the deletion was confirmed in a DRV. JoshuaZ 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the point now, although it's potentially a risky statement to make by itself, since people then start talking about the inherent notability of Equatorial Guinea or Tokelau. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think someone actually made comments about Equatorial Guinea in response to it at one point. I think a lot of people also don't realize how many microcountries there are especially in the Carribean and South-East Asia/Micronesia. JoshuaZ 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

True that, but surely even those small countries just by virtue of being themselves will attract coverage pretty quickly to get them over the hurdle. A self-declared micronation, of course, will have it much harder. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That squares with my impression as well. Also, some micronations get to be obviously notable like Sealand. JoshuaZ 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So I'm a troll now?

Now, I was going to drop the matter but some users have felt the need to continue to push me. So please tell me what the hell is the problem with me closing obvious AfDs. And why on earth am I not allowed to edit WP:AN, and why on earth I am not allowed to admit to being an alternative account, and why on earth my decent edits need to be all reverted and why on earth does my block deserve to be extended to indefinite and my talk page deleted when I try to explain the situation and request an unblock in a very much civil manner? And since when is closing AfDs trolling? And since when is reminding users about 3RR (who have already violated it against another user on that day) trolling?--AlternativeAccountK 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Those AfDs were very obvious, and I know many non-admins who close AfDs, in fact I know someone who also has a username containing "Alt Accoutn" in it who closes AfDs (I won't give you his username, as I see it is a blockable offense now). I will stop talking when I want to stop talking, thank you.--AlternativeAccountK 05:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No I won't stop, I still have a few people to talk to before I do. Is it illegal to complain too? I see you blocked me for trying to raise a complaint with the community the first time around. Now you're threatening to block me for raising complaints quietly on talk pages? What other behaviour by the way? Disputing Ryulong reporting me to AIV for giving him a deserved, yet kind, 3RR reminder? Or removing original research from an article (alas, stupidly forgot my edit summary the first time round, but I did clarify that).--AlternativeAccountK 06:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Signature problem

Sorry about the signature issue. I have updated it, and (hopefully) the problem has been solved. Tell me what you think. > Iridescence <  talk • contrib 07:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

William Connolley

I resent your allegation on my talk page. My edits are not vandalistic, with the possible exception of replacing the photo with that of a chimp, a little light-hearted jape which brought much merriment to jaded Connolley supporters. I think you need to take a chill pill and read the guidelines. Editing out superfluous material on a vanity puff page is not vandalism. Have fun. MarkThomas 08:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:142.213.66.212

JoshuaZ recently emailed for deleting my comments presumably disregarding NPOV policy. I beg to differ.

Specifically: 1) Im am not a Creationist. But I believe Wikipedia should be NPOV, not pro-atheist POV. The article about Creationnist does not show a NPOV, but the POV of a critic of Creationism. This article needs a strong writeup. Moreover, this article features neologisms, such as "Non-theistic", that do not exist in English. The Webster dictionary defines theism as:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theism

THEISM the·ism Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m Function: noun

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

- the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective - the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective - the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theism

Atheism Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnostic Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> - ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

Classifying, for example, as "non theistic" critics of creationism whose argumentation is grounded explicitly in refusal of any supernatural explanation of the world's origins. This position, by definition, is atheistic, e.g. from the latin a- (meaning "non, absent") and -theus (meaning "god"). The Wikipedia article on Creationism explicitly presents these critics as "neutral" while the creationists are presented as "ideologically wrong". Truth is, all groups debating on any issue are political actors with a partisan perspective (cf. Public Choice). I therefore attempted to hypocrisy of the "non-theistic" word, while Webster's dictionary confirms the proper term for critics of theism is either "atheists" or at best "atheists and agnostics". The wider definition of theism should not be confused with monotheism, for it encompasses panentheism, pantheism, henotheism and polytheism.

"Non theistic" simply is a nonexistent word in theology. It's a dishonest and falsely neutral front for the word "atheism", in a similar fashion than the terms "non-liberal", "non-people", "non-polluters" or "non-extremists"are improper English and strongly loaded terms.

I thereby invite JoshuaZ to reconsider that the current perspective about the Creationism articles is not NPOV at all. So it happens, that the Creationism article, among many articles, features a strongly anti-conservative bias and is scornful of Creationism, portraying them as kooks. Readers of a Wikipedia article on politics should not find an article biased in favour of a Left-wing or a Right-wing perspective.

2) The class war featured in the movie ZARDOZ is indeed a reflection of Marxist class conflict: Marx himself is quoted in the scene of Zed's (S. Connery) hypnotic education. Making comparisons to Jack Vance's ETERNAL LIFE (an allegeded Libertarian and certainly not a Marxist) is likewise.

3) While I understand that many if not most of Wikipedia's administrators embrace a liberal worldview, due to Internet demographics notably, it should be understood that NPOV is not "Left-POV" but "objective POV".

I do not hide that I support a centre-of-right perspective, but I challenge the fact that the articles on Creationism, among many others, present a NPOV. The perspective in which they are presented would insult any Creationist. This trend of "my [urbanite liberal] worldview is NPOV", is unfortunately the greatest challenge to Wikipedia's quality. The debate is not new, of course.

My opinion is that, to enforce its NPOV policy, Wikipedia should create a committee composed of four equal groups of members to force a consensus over controversies: 25% of Radical Left, 25% of Centre-Left, 25% of Centre-Right, 25% of Radical Right. Thus would partisan tendencies be controlled, not criticised only when they challenge the majority opinion of Wikipedia administrators who inevitably come to share a single worldview by virtue of their association and their similar demographics, at the risk of definiting it as NPOV.

I have no intention of debating further the topic. I simply deplore the fact that many of Wikipedia's less popular topics share a marked ideological bias. The simple fact that the article "Liberal bias" was destroyed to be merged with "Media bias" is a political choice from Wiki administrators to drown the political accusations of bias by the Right against the Left (easily accounting for over 90% of such accusations as reported in the media, i.e. into a vaguer concept). Is this accusation right? Depends on one's perspective. But the sociological concept does exist; the same could be said of the term "Race", that is without grounds in genetics, but applies daily in American politics and deserves its own articles.

The question must be asked: Speaking of Wikipedia NPV, who's NPV exactly are we speaking of? Neutral ideology does not exist. Everyone writing on a subject has an interest, by definition, and an opinion on this subject. Neutral articles simply present various sides on a issue in the way their supporters would present them, along with criticism in the way their critics would present them.

Studies supporting these observations:

Pr. D. Stutter, The Economics of Media Bias, University of Oklahoma http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj20n3/cj20n3-7.pdf

Kenneth Green, How Accurate is Science Reporting, Fraser Institute http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=668

Regards,

Richard Broenck, MPA, BA Canada yo josh can you unblock my stuff now? From together 4 ever I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU UNBLOCKED ME.

Thanks for the comments on User talk:Hornetman16

Hello JoshuaZ, thanks for the comments on the talk page of Hornetman16. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Herrell / Ice Cream

Hello JoshuaZ,

We corresponded on 22 September regarding the importance of Steve Herrell in the modern history of ice cream. You mentioned that you would try to track down some of the quotes on Steve Herrell's web page. I still stand by the 21 September edit I crafted. There's further confirmation here concerning Steve's early/first use of mix-ins in ice cream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Valley

though the greater picture involves the revolutionary role Steve Herrell played in introducing small-scale-production high-quality ice cream to a mainstream that eventually would embrace other high-quality products etc.

Thanks for your time.

DavidOPerson 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Detailed Questions Thanks!

Thank You Very Much!
 

(Open your card) → → →         

JoshuaZ, thank you very much for your support in my RfA, and even more so for supporting after asking your insightful questions about the strong opposition. Thank you for reading the responses, and giving me the chance. I'll never know, but wouldn't be surprised if the opportunity to respond there made the difference in others' opinions, and eventually the RfA's success or failure.

As you may know, my Request for Adminship is over, and successfully. I hope to make it have been worth while. I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in Category:Administrators open to recall, though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design from User:Phaedriel/Rfa thanks, which amazed me when I got it. GFDL.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Joseph's Catholic Infant School

At this point, looking at how Kappa votes, almost anything he votes to keep should be deleted. He and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles are everything that's wrong with Inclusionism. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a personal attack on Kappa. He's entitled to believe what he believes in, and I happen to think his beliefs and actions are harmful to Wikipedia, and so I act to counteract them, within reason. More to the point, your analogy is troubling. "To use an analogy, just because there is a serial killer who kills lots of people doesn't mean if he kills somone that that kill was necessarily immoral". Killing someone is the final, unalterable action that should only be utilized when there are no other alternatives. If Inclusionists were more like Spawn Man then I could see where they are coming from. But when your only rationale for constantly voting keep -- even to the point of vote-stacking and other illegal activities -- is that you think everything belongs, then the rationale is flawed. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your third question on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spawn Man

What information are you looking for in this question (now numbered #10) you don't think will be addressed by my question (still numbered #4)? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked about a "similar situation" I want to know specifically how he would handle the same situation. JoshuaZ 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cronulla Sharks

I see you made the same revert on Cronulla Sharks that I edit-conflicted with. I was too wondering to which version should I revert. Someone with better knowledge on the subject should probably take a look at the article. Prolog 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I went back to the right version, but you may want to ask around to get soemone to look at it. JoshuaZ 01:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you vandalize my comments to sugaar, we both talk euskera. If you don't understand don't butt inn!--Euskata 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Problematic editors use different language" that is a xenophovic comment, not acceptable!--Euskata 02:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Euskata?

You said it's complicated and you'll deal with him. Has he been blocked? Thulean 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm talking to him now. Since his personal attacks and other issues seem to have stopped I'm not inclined to block for now. JoshuaZ 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He's still doing. [2] Thulean 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will no longer revert but using suck puppet to make changes is vandalism because anonymity means changes not being made in good faith way.--Euskata 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

After personal attacks, vandalism, violation of 3rr and you didnt do anything. Nice job. He still continues [3] Thulean 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't made any new comments since my previous decision. JoshuaZ 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He did. [4]. He's probably 4.245.236.229. Thulean 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, just for your information (so you won't miss it), I rolled back an edit from HercuIean.[5] Other edits from the same user seem to be abuse[6] or vandalism[7] The account was created just an hour ago, and seems to have jumped right into an existing dispute. I would have blocked, but another admin got there first. (It's just possible that the edit on your talk page may not have been intended as vandalism. There is a software bug that occasionally causes an editor to unintentionally delete a previous editor's edit while adding his own.) Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I was using the template someone else sent me. Check my discussion page. Furthermore, it wasnt my sock puppet. And can you revert the page back please? They are adding lots of unsupported material, deleting cited stuff. Thulean

I'm not going to revert any version, I'd rather that you both cooperate with the mediation process in a calm fashion. (And yes, checkuser indicated that it wasn't your sock). JoshuaZ 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But it still was someones puppet, I think it was the Chinese california girl forget her name, not racist just pointing her user page descript info cause like said forgot her name if she really is she one never can be sure with so much suck puppets.Concnernd anonymis

I need a username. If you have a username, I can possibly get someone to run a checkuser. Not without that. JoshuaZ 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, if you have the username of the individual in question, I can possibly run a checkuser. JoshuaZ 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA:

Although it's not going very well, I'm gonna stick around & see how it ends. Your questions were very thought provoking & it gave me some extra room to release my thoughts. They were very well phrased & I enjoyed answering them (as you can see by my overly long responses... gulp...) What ever you decide, you've been a great help... Thanks a bunch! Spawn Man 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa RfC

I don't mind it being deleted if no one steps forward to certify the dispute. I may have been too hasty by starting it in the first place, in reaction to AMIB's comment on ANI. The "objectives" of the RfC have been realised - Kappa has taken the point by W.marsh, and I have realised that the "large-scale deprod" issue is not a violation of WP:POINT after all. Kavadi carrier 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re : Isabella V

I've prolonged the AfD. I don't think the outcome may change, but still I'll give the benefit of the doubt on "short" AfDs. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cedarhurst, New York

Only a part of this issue could be finessed by identifying the percentage of the population that are orthodox Jews. The user's main issue is not a mention about the Orthodox population in the village, but the presence of a category identifying it as an Orthodox Jewish Community, which he feels is misleading, because there are other ethnic and religious communities in Cedarhurst. I have tries to find a source for the Orthodox population, but this data is not tracked by the Census Bureau, and available estimates are for the general Five Towns area, not for any one community. I lived for two decades a block away from Cedarhurst. How on earth did you end up in Cedarhurst???? Alansohn 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have lived two decades IN Cedarhurst so I know it should not be labelled as an Orthodox Jewish community. Are that alot of Jews in Cedarhurst? Yes. But to label it as such is sort of insulting for the rest of the people living there. Helical Rift

Why would you encourage me to bypass the first stage of dispute resolution?

In this edit you encouraged me to avoid an administrator's talk page, referring to it as "bugging" him. WTF? That is the very purpose of talk pages, to give an opportunity for quick and easy dispute resolution between parties without having to make a big deal out of everything. If DRVs are necessary in these cases, I will file them, but until then, I prefer to start by addressing concerns in the traditional and appropriate fashion: by posting notices on the user talk pages of those I have a concern with. Unfocused 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Haggard

Joshua, would you mind dropping by the Ted Haggard talk page and give us your thoughts on adding him to the gay categories (again). We could use the opinion of a seasoned editor and if I'm in the wrong I can change my opinion in a heart beat. But as it stands now I feel we're indulging in outing someone. Cheers Mr Christopher 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page today. Much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

White people

See the talk page... it's important! --SunStar Net 11:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthony J. Hilder

Fixed - Thanks for the heads up. GabrielF 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Looking at the AfD pattern of 2similar (talk · contribs), I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person as the blocked Unfurnished (talk · contribs) (who was reported to WP:AIV [8] for being a sockpuppet of Waiting4 (talk · contribs)). Both of them made attacks on Seraphimblade. -- Gogo Dodo 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is a sock of waiting4. But right now, it is easier to have the conversation on that page. JoshuaZ 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your help on removing the vandalism on the Baha'u'llah page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth

May God Bless You Always!

Thank you for your comments. In regards to what you have said, I have a question. This may be streching things, but do you think that Wikitruth and other like anti-Wikipedia groups are responible for some of the vandalism in Wikipedia. I realize that a portion of the vandals are kids just messing things up becuase they are kids. However, I wonder if groups like Wikiruth encourage or perhaps incites some degree of vandalism? What do you think?

Yours in Christ, (Steve 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Given [9] and the user's presence of some good edits prior to his explosion at you I'm tempted to offer to unblock him if he retracts his statement to you and apologizes. However, I wanted to ok it with you before I did so. Given the extreme nature of his threat, I will not take such action unless it is ok with you. -JoshuaZ

Yes, that's quite fine with me; I felt bad about reporting him at first; as long as he adds constructively. BTW, I hope you don't mind me posting it on the talk page like this; if you do, feel absolutely free to remove it. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

Perspective

I have gone out of my way to avoid editing entries on myself and my employer and the groups to which I belong. Rarely, I correct errors and false statements; usually after I ask for a discussion. The NLG was founded as a "progressive" bar association. It is the word that was used at the time of the founding. It is a word that has a specific meaning. Those who say the word is not accurate or misleading have a POV based on ignorance of history and language. There is a national monthly magazine called the "Progressive." I write for it. The NLG is "Progressive." I am a "Progressive." If people are ignorant of the term, they should go to a library and read a dictionary definition. People who object to it here on Wikipedia need to get a life. Maybe they could go see a movie. Take a walk in the forest. My wife and I walked in the woods behind our house today. Very relaxing. If you have nothing better to do than to chase after me on Wikipedia and warn me that suggesting abject ignorance of basic words is not a matter that should attract the attention of sensible Wikipedia editors, or is a personal attack that requires your specious and unwanted input, then you perhaps would benefit from seeing two movies; or taking two walks in the woods. So when I tell you that you also need to get a life, please put these words in perspective.--Cberlet 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Class project

See the last revert/add to my [page]. Vegaswikian 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

I can't even begin to think what to do with the debate. Ideas? - crz crztalk 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Daniel seems to have left the project so the answer might be just let it drop and edit the article. JoshuaZ 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, since I posted here :) He was a POV warrior for sure, but still it's sad to see him leave. Shall we unprotect? Go ahead. - crz crztalk 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Privy Cousellors

(& incorrect ordering of postnominal letters) I have read the talk page but it seems no consensus was reached (Apart from a consensus between those wanting to implement a change, on how best to do it).Basketdove 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, erm he got a warning for violation of the Manual of Style article, and one for disruption, but sorry no one has something written about the adding of the prefixes. Also I have seen nothing that can imply that he will stop - the comment above says rather the opposite (in my opinion). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

User:VitaleBaby

This editor has been bullying through his changes on all of the newly elected officials pages. I am not trying to pull someone else in, but since I was involved in the Barack Obama fuss over African-American/Black/Mixed/african descent discussion, I thought some coaching might be helpful. Help! Stealthound 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He has over 700 edits since the election, all applying his own opinion of their format without giving any edit summaries or talk comments. I have encouraged him to talk things through before making these kind of changes, to no avail. He continues and makes hundreds of edits a day, many times removing valuable information. Thanks! Stealthound 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that he has persisted in removing lots of messages asking him to start dialogue, which he will not engage in. I am frustrated and am considering leaving. He has an established history of not paying attention to others opinions, that's all. Stealthound 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me

Just so you know, I apologized to Patstuart again, this time on his user talk page. Thank you again for unblocking me. --- Efil4tselaer 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand the meaning of your last comment. Care to expand upon it? VitaleBaby 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited your talk page just to be stupid. I didn't expect you to leave it that way. That user is just getting on my nerves, especially when he talks about me behind my back. I left him a long comment on my feelings. You can take a look at what I think there. VitaleBaby 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't understand what's so contreversial about adding infoboxes. And as to the page about Jim Webb, to what are you refering when you said I deleted something? At one point, I had changed his religion to Presbyterian and had changed the link that provides proof of his denomination. However, after it was changed back, I reread my source and saw that it was flawed (it had Allen's info under Webb's and vice versa). After looking at a congressional website, I verified that Webb is officially listed as 'nondenominational protestant', and I changed it accordingly. I deleted nothing from this page, so please do no assert that I did. I don't know why my adding of infoboxes is stirring up so much trouble. All I'm trying to do is provide for organization. After all, before I started make this my little project, some of the pages of the congressmen were awful. I'm hoping that this is cleared off and that Mr. Stealthound will lay off my case. Again, these 700 edits are because I added infoboxes or made little changes to the boxes of every senator and representative. Think about it. If I changed just one mispelling or something of that nature in each Congressman's page, that would be 535 edits right there. Sorry that I removed the other content before from your page. I'm just frustrated that Mr. Hound feels it's best to criticize behind me back instead of discussing things civilly.VitaleBaby 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, there does not seem to be a definite format for how names are presented in infoboxes. When there are used at the beginning of an article, I always make sure the person's full name and any nicknames are presented. However, when I started editing these pages there was not real consistancy in terms of the names that are seen in the boxes. Sometimes full names would be presented, other times common nicknames. I am currently trying to make for uniformity among naming. Originally I had full names on all of the politican's boxes (such as John Patrick Murtha, Jr.), but people began complaining so started to use common names in boxes instead (John Murtha). Either way, I'm taking heat, and its hard to get people to agree. An by the way, the Webb comment is from a user who didn't sign, so that presents a little problem.VitaleBaby 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we have worked things out in a very productive manner. Sorry to pull you into that. I was a little desperate. Thanks for everything! Stealthound 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

88

I understand that you must be against anything which shows signs of sympathy towards Nazism, and rightly so. However, I don't think you can prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the 88 in Drew88 means HH. You are right to suspect this, and although it is a well-based suspicion, it is still a suspicion. For all you know, his intentions in his username may have been innocent. And anyhow, the 88 isn't insulting anybody. How many people even know about the connection.

There just aren't enough grounds to suggest a change of username IMHO.

TC m8. MaxCosta 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi, since you have been partially involved in this dispute, I'd like to invite you to consider this block request. Thanks. - Ekantik 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. There has been an update to the request with more information to support a temporary or permanent block. Perhaps it should be enforced now to prevent further disruption and allow the article to be proper and unbiased editing? - Ekantik 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of pop culture references in Warcraft

I have to disagree with your deleting this article. There was no "vast majority" as you seem to claim. Many of the agruments people used in favor of deleting it were not very sound. Is there a way to appeal this? --Pinkkeith 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I know that I am bias to my own point of view, but I thought with the way that the comments were heading and the agruments on either side it would come down to "no consenses." This would be even more true, in my opinon, for someone that beleives the arguments on either side were not very sound. --Pinkkeith 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You made that clear. I was just reading over the policy, guidelines and how to before posting. Even after reading over it I messed up! :) I posted it now. You can find it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 14. I also want to make clear that my doing so isn't an attack against you or any of the people that took an opposing view point from the one I had. --Pinkkeith 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I still messed up on it. Let me correct my comment. I copied and pasted the wrong line. --Pinkkeith 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati#NPOV

Hi Joshua, i'm not sure if you still have Sarfati on your watch list but you might be interested in this new discussion. I'd hate to see all that effort wasted since it has been pretty stable recently. David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New guidelines on tedentious editing?

I must have missed something... what's the link? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DE. JoshuaZ 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Danke. Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Howdy,

Not that I have any inclination to reopen it or anything, but I didn't see anything that necessitated speedy closing -- giving these annoying folks a sense of fairness costs us nothing, and it doesn't change the result. It isn't as if the closer -- likely me or Trialanderrors -- is going to be swayed by idiocy anyway. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent block was a violation of wikipedia policy and an abuse of sysop privileges.

You recently blocked me from editing without warning or valid reason from editing on Wikipedia, for making a good-faith edit to a contrivertial discussion. The given reason was "if an admin wishes to reinstate it will be reinstated", however I was under the impression that any user in good faith should act as an administrator. From Wikipedia:Administrators: "In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."

This also appears to violate the wikipedia blocking policy WP:BP: "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" I reverted your closure of a deletion review in good faith because he did so without posting any valid reason for deleting the entire discussion. The only things he DID reference were WP:SNOW (which isn't policiy and doesn't apply to the situation) and WP:Ignore All Rules (which hardly stands as valid authority for such a large and broad edit). If you disagreed with me, as a matter of policy you were disallowed from blocking me. Instead, wikipedia policy calls for you to bring the matter to a disinterested third-party administrator. The reason of this is exactly to prevent the kind of abuses you demonstrated.

You probably didn't read my contribution to the discussion:

• Overturn Deletion and restore deletion review. I have restored the original discussion of the deletion review as it was incorrectly closed. If you wish to discuss the deletion of the deletion review, please do so in the next section below. The deletion review was closed under WP:SNOW which is not wikipedia policy nor does it apply to this discussion. This is an active discussion with many different sides and viewpoints. While everyone has their opinion, it is impossible for anyone at this juncture whether the deletion will be overturned or not. May I make a personal request to please keep the discussion focused on the article in question, and on making improvements and citations in order to prove that the article meets all necessary wikipedia standards for inclusion. Remember everyone, in the end our goal is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. That’s why we’re all here, and that’s what this deletion review is for.

67.161.115.240 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to close. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we are not going to blindly follow process simply to make some people from some forum feel good about themselves. Furthermore, the notion that because somehow at one point everyone functioned as an admin somehow allows you to act as one is ridiculous especially when multiple admins have determined that the discussion was unproductive and disruptive. My block was in retrospect not yet necessary in that a single restoration was most likely not bad enough to require a block. JoshuaZ 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing your decision to close here. My point is that what resulted was a content dispute: wherein you thought one thing, I thought another. I'm also not interested in the fact that at one pont everyone functioned with the technical rights as sysops, however I am very interested in the fact that "in principle they still should." That's how I conduct myself and I believe that's consistant with the nature of wikipedia. I believe you have a very serious misunderstanding of the functioning of wikipedia if you say it's ridiculous for me to assume I can act in the role of an administrator. That's 100%, exactly verbatim what WP:ADMIN says. Since you are someone who has been granted sysop priviliges, I would feel much more comfortable if you were famillier with your role as an administrator WRT the rest of the community (ie. you SHOULD simply be a regular member of the community, with added controls to help you further develop wikipedia). Your violation of the blocking policy and raising yourself and other administrators to a pedestal demonstrates you either have not read either policy, did not understand them, or consciously chose to ignore them. 67.161.115.240 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the policy and guidelines say thank. However, I don't see this as a content dispute- to be blunt I see this as an anon most likely coming from a forum which has attempted to spam Wikipedia and endorsed death threats against Wikipedia editors in good standing coming through and reverting a decision that continued discussion was disruptive. That's not a content dispute, that's preventing further disruption. In so far as that, blocking you would be within procedure. JoshuaZ 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad you have read the policies. For your reference they are WP:ADMIN and WP:BP, please re-read them as you must have either not understood them or consciously chose to ignore them. I disagree with your analysis that this was not a content dispute, that's exactly what it was. You felt you were justified in removing dozens of comments from an active discussion, I felt wikipedia was better served WITH the comments. From WP:BP in that situation you are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from issuing a block, and instead MUST speak with a neutral third-party to evaluate and block if he or she deems appropriate. Even if you incorrectly felt justified in your block, this should have then been considered a controversial block under the condition “blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.” You did not, and if you disagree I challenge you now to post a relevant policy giving authority to your decision. In cases of controversial blocks there is an eight step procedure you are to take, and as far as I can tell you didn’t take a single one of the eight.

Moving on, you completely disregarded my comments about your misunderstanding of the very nature of wikipedia administrators, WP:ADMIN. Please tell me how I am not justified, as a wikipedian and fellow editor, to take action in good faith where I see it needed? Please justify your earlier statement “the notion that because somehow at one point everyone functioned as an admin somehow allows you to act as one is ridiculous” because from what I can tell, you MUSTNT have read WP:ADMIN recently as that is a DIRECT contradiction to what you have said.

Cheers, 67.161.115.240 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't getting this into your head, but you aren't an editor in good standing. If an editor in good standing had reverted my removal it would be one thing, but you aren't. As far as I can tell you are a disruptive individual coming from another forum to attempt to spam your material onto Wikipedia. Now, maybe I'm coloring all the new users and anons who got involved in the GenMay discussion with too broad a brush, but that's what it looks like. In so far as that, I wasn't blocking an editor who I was in a content dispute with - stopping further disruption isn't a content dispute. Similarly, that section of WP:ADMIN simply doesn't apply to you in so far as WP:SOCK makes clear that single use account or single purpose anons are not considered community members. If you feel it was that gross an abuse of power I suggest you file a WP:RfC. JoshuaZ 16:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. The sole reason I am still here is I will feel much more comfortable that wikipedia is in good hands if the people granted with sysop privileges understand the nature of administrators and administration on the site, as hopefully that will decrease inappropriate blocks and sysop actions in the future. I'm simply trying, as you do every day by volunteering your services to wikipedia, to further the quality of the encyclopedia. Hopefully you will put any defensiveness you have against any feedback I have for you aside and accept that it is possible for you to take something positive out of this experience. The main point I would like you to take away from this is summarized in WP:ADMIN, all users may act as administrators, only some have access to special administrative functions of the site to aid them in their duties. "all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they [all users] still should." If you don't believe I fit into that category, you have an incorrect definition of all users. I interperate all users to mean, all users. I include myself in all users. Please recognize that wikipedia isn't built just by its administrators. Yes they put in a large amount of time and effort, however without the general userbase wikipedia would be much less evolved than it is now. Please respect your fellow users and editors, whether or not they possess sysop priviliges. All I am looking for is an acknowledgement that you understand the policy and that I should have been protected under it, and that it should (and does) apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you agree with everyone all the time.67.161.115.240 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss this quote from JosuhaZ above? "My block was in retrospect not yet necessary in that a single restoration was most likely not bad enough to require a block." If this is not what you want to hear your should probably take it to an RfC. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not miss it, however that was the exact same edit where he said "the notion that because somehow at one point everyone functioned as an admin somehow allows you to act as one is ridiculous". That misguided view is more dangerous than a single short-term block. I am still waiting to hear Joshua's response before starting an RfC. I did not start one earlier as RfCs on users require a minimum of two attempts by users to contact the offending party and resolve the matter on their own. As a relatively simple matter I hope that this can be settled without further escalation, and I also feel that would be the most productive in achieving my end goal stated above "The sole reason I am still here is... yada yada yada".67.161.115.240 07:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the sole reason you in wikipedia is to stir up trouble in deletion review. I don't know the whole history the the GM page but for these trivial articles to waste so much time is one of the major draw backs in WP. If such a site is so important it will be cited and can easily be rewritten. To shut down the process is a reasonable thing to do for an article that has lobbyists that don't know when to stop.

To now pursue this is wasting more time. If you don't want to get blocked don't walk into a fire fight with an IP. User your user name, if you have one. If not, create a user name. IP's who edit articles in good faith obviously have the protection of the policy but to be editing on deletion review as an anon is clearly asking for trouble. This pretense of outrage is not going to wash with most people here, certainly those will be discussing the potential RfC. Clearly your edits were beyond the normal expectations of a brand new user. Certainly warnings were not given and that was wrong, but you need to accept responsibilty for what you did too. David D. (Talk) 07:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Touché, I concede that the circumstances surrounding my actions could be interpreted wrongly by a reasonable individual. I would like it known, however, that the sole reason I am on wikipedia was NOT to stur-up trouble. I have a few non-logged in typo edits on this IP address over the few months I've had it, and many more edits on my username and other IP addresses. I understand that you cannot see those edits not from this IP address so they cannot aid in defense of my actions. Irregardless, however, the one single issue I continue to hold is JoshuaZ's refusal to comment about what he said regarding administers. I'm just waiting for him to acknowledge that all users are covered under that policy, and I should have been as well. If he doesn't come back to this discussion only then will I file a RfC, I think it would be more constructive however to just get it over with now.67.161.115.240 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK some mea culpa and a constructive reply. That is all anyone can ask for. I've said my piece, and sorry for butting in, but it just seemd to be more time wasting from my perspective. Hoopefully there will be no need for an RfC. David D. (Talk) 16:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, this is completely out of order. You can't just go around blocking anon IP's like that. This IP user is clearly a single minded individual who has sensibly familiarised himself with all WP policy before starting to edit. To accuse him of being a sock without actual evidence is a terrible thing to do. I demand to see your evidence, where are these socks you claim to see? Upload some photos, something, show us your proof. By the way, pretty interesting that Sarfati got put up for AfD. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. David D. (Talk) 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

David, you'll forgive me if I have a bit less AGF when the individual in question first shows up to restore the discussion of a sock and IP laden DRV full of users coming from a forum which among other things had issued death threats against a Wikipedia admin. As I said above I shouldn't have blocked him without a few warnings that reopening was disruptive, and I do appreciate his attempt to become familiar with policy. Aside from that I don't see what the issue is since I already agreed above that I shouldn't have blocked him under the circumstances. As for the Sarfati thing, it is an interesting point and I'm surprised in retrospect that the idea never came up during the whole AA matter. JoshuaZ 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First, please excuse my sarcasm, probably a bit inappropriate given the circumstances. Second, I think the reason it did not get put up for AfD during the AA matter was that all of us editing were quite familiar with him. Thus, to us he did appear notable. A case of not being able to see the wood for the trees? David D. (Talk) 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Williamwells

You reverted comments I made on User_talk:Williamwells, although he previously replied to my initial posting here. As you can see, he told me to "please respond when you have a chance". So I am not trolling -- and user:Jakew has a keen interest in preventing communication between me an Williamwells. Please let Williamwells decide for himself, it's his talk page and he asked me to reply. As I told him on his talk page: If he tells me to stop posting, I will do so at once. But as of now, he has shown interest in communicating with me. -- Don't be unfair to him, he's a newbie. At least give him an explanation and a fair chance to figure out on his own what is going on. 87.78.183.9 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked indefinitely. Any statements you make will be removed. Whether or not someone wants to talk to you is irrelevant. If you want to discuss being unbanned then discuss that. Otherwise stop. JoshuaZ 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the minority of the contributions I made since my ban have been reverted. But when I dare to speak up against Jakew, I get instant and aggressive response. Ironically, the exact same thing happened to me when I wasn't banned. About discussing being unbanned: I've already tried that. No, no. I am a Wikignome, always was. But now, I'm a Wikignome with attitude. And I don't need your respect. 84.44.174.157 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not commenting on your other comments except to say If I find any of them, I will remove them as well. Your unblock request is laughable. Why don't you look at what Jayjg's block summary actually said and talk to him about the dif that resulted in blocking. You have a much better chance if you explain that dif or retract it or something similar than pretending that it was about RfA spamming. JoshuaZ 02:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reasons for my block have been changing over time. And as I said, Jayjg had been ignoring me. And btw, Amerique is an AMA member, which makes Jayjg's revert doubtful, euphemistically speaking. If you want to revert me some more, I suggest starting here, here, here, or here. 84.44.174.157 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe the claim that the blocking reason has changed and I see no evidence that ever tried to address the original blocking reason. Maybe you should do that. JoshuaZ 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should I? 84.44.174.157 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you will have a much higher chance of being unblocked and won't then have all your non-typo corrections reverted on sight. JoshuaZ 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I could just use sockpuppets for that, but I don't even bother. 84.44.174.157 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't attempt to do so I may feel a need to start issueing range blocks. I strongly suggest you discuss this with Jayjg again. As far as I am concerned this conversation is over. If I see any more edits from your current IP that aren't an attempt to discuss the matter with im, I will simply block the IP. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in trying to discuss with Jayjg any more. I've tried it enough times. Over and out. 84.44.174.157 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I will discuss it with him. In the meantime I would appreciate if you wouldn't edit. JoshuaZ 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. 84.44.174.157 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So? 87.78.145.116 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that your disruption occured mainly on circumcision articles it may be acceptable for you to be unblocked if you completely avoid them and any articles related to them. However, your past behavior makes it hard to see you doing so. Is there some assurance that one could have that you won't return to your normal disruptive behavior? JoshuaZ 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From the contribs I made with the Subversive_element account, I think that there is some assurance that I am generally capable of and willing to do sensible contributions to other areas of WP. All I can say beyond that is I don't like being reduced to some admittedly childish actions of mine when there is proof that I also made a fair number of perfectly uncontroversial edits. (btw: I maintain that with the actions that finally got me banned, I was not intentionally being disruptive, but rather being bold and ignoring rules for what I perceived the best of WP.) Of course, the evaluation of my overall contributions and subsequent decision about me being or not being fit to be unblocked rests with admin judgment: Do you trust me not to be disruptive again, when I promise to be a lot more careful in the future, and to totally avoid circumcision and related articles? 87.78.186.200 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even more importantly, everything about this finally rests with Jayjg's judgement. Which is the catch of it, as his indef.blocks against me where not non-negiotiable, but instead were based on his personal judgement of me. AFAIK, he never cared to comment on the majority of my noncontroversial contribs. 87.78.186.200 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS3

...Agreeing with what Shimeru said above and an additional point. Alan, the first thing you did on the talk page for WP:SCHOOLS3 was make your suggestion for a "rumble" and haven't gone much beyond that aside from continuing to edit that section (a total of 4 comments in that section two related to your rumble suggestion). Instead of engaging in WP:POINTS like demaning face-offs and making WP:SCHOOLS4 it might help if you would actually discuss the issues. JoshuaZ 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you take a look at the WP:SCHOOLS3 talk page, you'll see several constructive comments I have added regarding the current version of the pseudo-proposal. Take a look at today's discussion I kicked off at [narrowing in Criterion 1 of the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard] for an example of some critical issues I have with the current version of the proposal, which seems to be headed for an exclusivist definition of what the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard means that goes way too far beyond any reasonable interpretation of that standard listed in WP:N, and as described in detail at WP:CORP and WP:BIO, Wikipedia's gold-standard guidelines for notability. I fail to see why going off on you own to create an arbitrary guideline is not a violation of WP:POINT, when consensus is far closer on WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOL3 is being crafted by the most extreme deletionist element and has no prayer of achieving consensus. Working on an entirely unrealistic guideline is no more productive than creating an equally unrealistic standard that says all schools are notable. The current guideline proposed in WP:SCHOOLS3 is a dead end; WP:SCHOOL is just short of consensus. Let's work on pushing WP:SCHOOL over the top, and stop convincing yourselves that WP:SCHOOL3 will ever get anywhere, certainly not in its current form. When was your last suggestion at WP:SCHOOL? Alansohn 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alan, it would be mildly appreciated if you would keep conversations in one location and not keep moving replies around. That said, I referred to the fact that the first edits you made to the talk page were trollish and/or pointish. Your subsequent comments seem much better than the earlier ones. As to the criterion 1 issue, as already discussed, schools are far more likely to get local coverage and therefore coverage in local newspapers is less of an argument for notability. Furthermore, local coverage of schools is very rarely fact checked so almost all local coverage by default fails at being reliable sources. As also already discussed, to some extent this is a formalization of what is already true at WP:CORP- puff pieces and government inspection reports are not enough for criterion 1 of WP:CORP. Similarly for WP:BIO - if two different local newspapers had little cute articles about a local kid running a charity drive we wouldn't say that met WP:BIO. As for the claim that WP:SCHOOLS is closer to achieving consensus than WP:SCHOOLS3 this may be just me coming from a less inclusionist perspective than you but it looks to me like WP:SCHOOLS3 is closer to what most editors are in favor of (although would agree that neither one is close to achieving consensus. At some point people need to agree to compromise and very few people seem to do that). As to your claim that "working on an entirely unrealistic guideline is no more productive than creating an equally unrealistic standard that says all schools are notable" given that many people seem to think that it has some chance of working (and if you think it doesn't I don't know why you've bothered to make suggested changes there) and given that by your own admission WP:SCHOOLS4 was created to make a point on a single AfD it seems obvious to me which has more of a chance at being productive. As to your final inquiry- I've made many comments and suggestions at WP:SCHOOLS, none of which were listened to almost all. In fact, part of the logic of creating WP:SCHOOLS3 was that multiple inclusionist editors had complained that the less inclusionist editors had not made any proposal, hence I made what I thought was a somewhat reasonable proposal that was slightly more inclusive than I would have prefered. I then asked for comments on the Village Pump and on WP:SCHOOLS and got almost no comments from inclusionists. The notion that this was somehow similar to creating a temporary guideline so you could cite in a single AfD is ridiculous. Now, can we please go back to discussing the proposed guideline? JoshuaZ 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While I spotted it by chance, you can't count on me finding a discussion on someone else's talk page, which is why I replied to you on a comment you left to me on someone else's page by posying here on your talk page. I think that you -- and especially the far more deletionist elements at WP:SCHOOLS3 -- are trying to water down the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard to nothingness. There is no evidence whatsoever that articles in local newspapers don't treat the subjects seriously by fact checking, and there is no such standard anywhere else in Wikipedia. I agree that government inspection reports do not confer notability and that there trivial newspaper pieces that do not demonstrate notability, which WP:BIO ably defines as "newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." That there are also human interest-type stories (e.g., your charity drive) example that do not qualify I would also agree. I will also grant that routine sports articles do not confer notability. However, most other pieces, even from local papers, that are about the school, its students or staff meet the exact definition of WP:RS and WP:V. The fact that schools do get frequent coverage is a demonstration of their notability; the suggestions that I have made at WP:SCHOOLS3 that its criterion 1 must be expanded to be meaningful, which have been just as effectively ignored, simply deny the facts that WP:RS and WP:V all explicitly accept the sources that WP:SCHOOLS3 tries so desperately to ignore. Deleting is very easy; Just type "nn" or "per nom". Creating articles takes work and having reasonable standards makes the job of those who work on these articles reasonable. But, as it stands now and given the direction it's heading in, WP:SCHOOLS3 is a dead end. Alansohn 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred version of what the modified criterion 1 would say then? Also note that some inclusionist editors have stated that they will not accept any school policy that condones deletion and right now I think that's probably a bigger sticking point than the details for criterion 1 (see for example, Chris's comments on the page). JoshuaZ 04:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Jinxtengu's Accounts are Still at Large

Hello JoshuaZ, sorry to bring this tired matter on you again but the vandalizer/spoofer from some time back seems bent to continue their spree of vandalism (1). I have decided to take the matter to the Long Term Abuse page, seeing as this user has recieved a block for issuing a death threat (2) and persistently launches personal attacks/vandalism with various sock puppets.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet may be asking if checkuser can find an IP range to block. JoshuaZ 03:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion I will try that promptly.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I violated the 3RR policy.

Please show me where I violated the 3RR policy. Please don't waste my time with your ill founded warnings. ken 06:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Stop your harrassment. I want no more messages from you. ken 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Oops!

I'm sorry... I didn't realize there wasn't consensus on the wp:up issue. I still think there's something a bit wrong & annoying about warning deletions. Kasreyn 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol - you're funny :) -- Tawker 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati

I noticed that some sections of this are half-way balanced, but others were simply awful streams of POV. I took the liberty of trimming the article down to a mostly NPOV article, moving the rest to the talk page. Am I right to do so? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. The answer is wait and see. David D. (Talk) 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: anon at User talk:Williamwells

Hi Joshua. Thanks for your note. The anon has been repeatedly blocked for inappropriate behaviour. Since he has already explained it so well, let me quote Jayjg:

Subversive element first appeared as an IP editor around September 20, making wildly inappropriate edits to Circumcision related articles, edit-warring like mad, and attacking various editors, User:Jakew in particular. His IPs included 87.78.178.102 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 87.78.148.84 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 87.78.184.150 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 87.78.153.226 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 87.78.158.212 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 87.78.150.238 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and others; when the IPs were blocked (not by me), he'd get another, insisting that the blocks were invalid. Eventually the articles in question were all sprotected. He then came back a few days later as User:Tit for tat, and started tagging User:Jakew's comments as those of a "Single issue editor". When this userid was blocked as well, he again insisted vociferously that the block was invalid - that he realized what he'd done wrong before, but that he was a changed person, and should be unblocked. After he posted on all sorts of boards and Talk: pages, and after lengthy discussion on WP:AN/I, he was not unblocked. He then returned as User:Subversive element, for some reason campaigning to have his Tit for tat userid unblocked, insisting he'd learned his lesson. He harassed me for a while about it; I finally told him that I wasn't going to unblock the old account, and that I wouldn't block the new one unless he got into similar mischief. He bitterly assured me that he wouldn't, but then proceeded to campaign to get a specific editor made an administrator based on his putative anti-Circumcision views, contacting every anti-Circumcision editor he could think of, even avowed neo-Nazis. After I blocked the latest account, he again resumed his campaign of posting on any page he could think of, trying to get unblocked, on the grounds that while the previous blocks might have been valid, the latest one certainly was not. This editor is clearly unable to edit in a reasonable way, and continually plays the game of unreasonable behavior, followed by a block, followed by complaints that the block wasn't reasonable, campaigning to get unblocked, eventual re-appearance as another editor, promises that he is reformed. Rinse, wash, repeat. He views Wikipedia as a battleground on which to fight the anti-circumcision battle (as he has stated outright), and continues to try to find new ways to do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This is his third round of this, and I don't think Wikipedia needs a fourth.

— Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Amerique#Subversive element

Hope this helps. Jakew 12:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It sure does. But please stop making false accusations about me deleting any comments of yours from user_talk:Williamwells. As everyone can see, this is not true. Thank you. 87.78.186.200 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Black billionaires

You seem to have missed my point.

Michael Jackson said that he was a billionaire & some agents (whoever they might be) said he was not. My point here is that it was or has never being proved that MJ is not (or is) a billionaire. The article clearly states it in a way to make the reader believe/think that MJ is NOT a billionaire. The fact that it has being cited dosent mean anything bcos nothing has being proved/disproved.

It is not a ridiculous statement for MJ to say that he is a billionaire (highest selling solo artist of all time). It would be unfair for the article to come across as MJ not being a billionaire bcos all the info is speculatory in nature. I have therefore taken the best option, which is not to mention it at all. --OnesixOne 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the best option. The best option then is to mention that he said he is and that there are sources which disagree. JoshuaZ 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. My username didn't violate anything in your page, you're just protecting that little muslim because he got all pissy about a nonmuslim referenceing his moongod in name.

If my name has to go every muslim with allah in his name has to pick a new one too.

ha ha ha http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=88742138&oldid=88741881 what a fucking retard you are, they cover shit up all the time, to protect the crimes of admins... but you dont give a shit do you?

Oops!

Sorry about the reversion! I got a little rollback-happy with this particular user.  :) -- Merope 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely understandable. Heck, if that had been on another user's page my reaction might have been to roll it back. JoshuaZ 06:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

I see you've been busy. Might you be able to make a point of stopping by? We have an admin who locked the article to a version that not only has high POV content, but he happens to be a recent convert to Islam and it's an Islam-related article, making the conflict of interest VERY apparent. I think it's obvious that it was locked not for stopping the edit conflict, but to get an upper hand in controlling the article's content.70.114.236.109 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Did You Rv My Edit?

100110100 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You took out the comments around a commented item. I didn't notice the rest of the edit. I should have just restored the commenting on it. Feel free to revert me as long as the comment stays commented. JoshuaZ 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused about what you mean by how I've taken '...comments around a commented item...' and it's permutations. I'm not an adminstrator, so I can't rv. Thanks.100110100 10:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Er. Anyone can revert. What admins can do is rollback which is a 1 button revert. Anyways, your second edit corrected the matter. If you compare the two versions you'll see what I'm talking about. JoshuaZ 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, by what you rv then......100110100 05:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. It wasn't that important. JoshuaZ 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Rose quote in Richard Dawkins

Sorry about that. I'm getting close to a "revert all NBeale edits on sight" policy. I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't... You are right - the quote is valid and worthwhile. But I do feel that the article is under sustained attack, and part of that attack consists of making it unreadable by turning it into a tedious list of critics and criticisms. All carefully sourced, no doubt, mostly relevant, but the overall effect is the degrade the article to the point of unreadability. Snalwibma 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This may be more of an issue of how should criticism be organized so as not to disrupt the flow of the article. JoshuaZ 09:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse from Andjam

I find it extremely insulting and incivil that Andjam took it upon himself to try to protect an admin so clearly out of line, by removing my comment from the Beit Hanoun incident talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABeit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident&diff=88766301&oldid=88764696

His behavior is not conducive to making a constructive and actually fair article in any respect. 70.114.236.109 15:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Kdbuffalo

Hello, JoshuaZ! I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about User:Kdbuffalo, for he just archived our messages. He's been blocked before for 3RR violations diff, and I've actually heard complaints from other Wikipedians about his/her unruly behaviour. What do you think? –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, archiving rather than just blanking is an improvement for him so there may be hope. If his behavior continues I'm going to file an RfC possibly or just go to ANI and get consensus for community probation and/or article bans. JoshuaZ 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but I wouldn't exactly characterize it as "archiving". It's more along the lines of "selectively deleting" things. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2

I wanted to check I added my comments in the proper way for them to be counted. Have I? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That's fine. Feel free to add anything else you think is relevant. JoshuaZ 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to spend a lot of my time addressing your patent nonsense complaints

I am not going to spend a lot of my time addressing your patent nonsense complaints. ken 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

By the way...

By the way, the user ReasonIsBest who was one of your three star witnesses has an inflamatory user page against Christian fundamentalist (which I am not) and has repeatedly sent me harrassing mail. I would say your choice of witnesses is awfully poor. ken 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

You're not a Christian fundamentalist? So is that different to an young earth creationist? David D. (Talk) 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The term fundamentalist can have a variety of different meanings to different people. Ken might self identify as evangelical with emphasis on a literal genesis without self-identifying as a fundamentalist. JoshuaZ 08:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. I guess fundamentalist has become like liberal in that sense. Different thing to different people. David D. (Talk) 08:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell ReasonisBest to stop sending me harrassing emails

Tell ReasonisBest to stop sending me harrassing emails ken 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Harrassing email

So that notice on his page was a harrassing email? First, it is pretty funny that he does not know what email is. What year is this again? And I would ask anyone to look at the content of what I had in my note to him on his page. I am wondering if he really is a militant atheist on an Anti-Christian and anti-creationist agenda to try to make them look as bad as possible. I am not kidding. Just think about it. There is a wiki that is very accepting of his views, but he prefers to stay here and cause fights. He demonstrates tremendous ignorance of the subject he supposedly is so steeped in. He is warned over and over and over, and responds with personal attacks and name-calling.

I also edited my homepage for his pleasure, but I left up my constructive advice to creationists. If they want to be productive, there are lots of ways to do it. But fighting long lost battles or fighting other editors is not one of them.--ReasonIsBest 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spam"

OK I reverted myself. Now I shall try not to think of College Tonight or its AfD at all. :-> Kimchi.sg 07:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Google assistance

A search for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&as_qdr=all&q=moon+judge+political+economic++%22new+york%22&btnG=Search finds:

• An appellate court has ruled that the primary purpose of the Unification Church, headed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, is not religious and that the church is not entitled to have three buildings it owns in New York City exempted from city property taxes.
• Justice Harold Birns wrote this week for the three-judge majority in the first case: "We conclude that political and economic theory is such a substantial part of petitioner's doctrine that it defeats petitioner's claim that its primary purpose is religious. Although religion is one of petitioner's purposes, it is not its primary purpose." [10]

Excellent. Thanks Ed. JoshuaZ 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Chemistry/Previous articles

I just noticed your message in that page's deletion log, and I'm a bit confused. I marked it as a speedy because I recently changed the layout of the portal, and we don't need an archive page anymore. Should I have marked it differently? Not calling you out, mind :) Just wondering if I did that the wrong way. Cheers, riana_dzasta 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it wasn't really speedy under any obvious speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD but it seemed to make sense to speedy it anyways given the circumstances. JoshuaZ 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, gotcha. Thanks for explaining :) riana_dzasta 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:King.of.kings

Hypothetical question (now that he's indef blocked). do you think a user name "King.of.kings" would fall under the WP:USERNAME category of references to deities? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not obviously. The term isn't always used as a deity. I think for example that one of the official titles of the Emperor of China translated roughly that way. JoshuaZ 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that. Ahh, I see it now: King of Kings. Didn't even think to look there! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the content of his vandalism, I suspect he is trying to reference Triple H. JoshuaZ 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not a big wrestling fan! I was only thinking of the King of Kings#Religious meanings. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Noahide Laws

JoshuaZ, I figured you were more familiar with policy. What can be done when an editor senselessly wikilinks a page all over the place? Is this spam? Should it be reported somewhere? I noticed initially because of a senseless edit to Religion which is on my watchlist. Then I checked the user history, and sure enough. Thanks.PelleSmith 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't obviously fall under WP:SPAM although it does seem to fall under WP:NPOV by giving unnecessary emphasis on the topic. JoshuaZ 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Each edit on its own is a forgivably poor edit, but the pattern of edits makes it seem alot more like SPAM. I think the lack of response on the talk page, and the attempt to put the link into different places of for instance Christianity as it got deleted from other sections makes it seem that the editor knows he/she is spamming. Thanks for the point about NPOV.Cheers.PelleSmith 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Noahlaws and urged him to discuss things with people on his talk page while he's blocked. If you could try to explain to him what the problem is here, that would be good. Chick Bowen 01:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

Have a look at the left-side edit. I've restored him. But be careful: He has this nasty habit of making lots of edits, and he doesn't always end up fully reverted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks and incivility is a good thing. It is a sign that he is possibly learning. JoshuaZ 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A brief note on gender

LOL, I know KC is a fem, that was a bit of a joke. I have asked both KC and the Mouse to offer their input on the Amoils issue. I have great respect for their knowledge of policy and will follow their lead. Of course, if they disagree, trying to follow their lead could become a rather schizophrenic experience. Thanks for your note :)

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

email

Try vegased69@yahoo.com Vegaswikian 23:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)