User talk:JoshuaZ

Important I prefer to keep conversations in one place. So if you send put a talk message on my page, I will respond there. However, if I leave a talk message on your page, and you respond here, I will respond on your page for consistency.

Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002 Talk Archive003 Talk Archive004 Talk Archive005 Talk Archive006 Next archiving will occur around March 1

edit warring on memri page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridge to T

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Peruvian activists

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.

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

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

JoshuaZ

---

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

---

Young Earth Creationism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification AN/I Discussion

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

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, 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 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Michael Langan

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

mediations on Cole and MEMRI

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

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

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

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

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

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

Tova Hartman, Mendel Shapiro and Daniel Sperber

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

Notability schools

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

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

Thanks!

Kevin

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

Chabad Messianism

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

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

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

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

How can this be resolved?

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

Category Article

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

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia

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

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

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

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

Partnership minyan

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

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

memri and cole mediations?

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

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

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

Parody site?

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

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

a quantity

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

Afd Metropolis

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

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

Bed

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

Re:Correction

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

csloat block

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

מכה בפטיש

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

Block of Commodore Sloat

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

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

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

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

Commiserations

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

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

Your last action on Global warming controversy

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

Pensacola Christian College

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

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)

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

JJay RfC

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

Re:Robot or cyborg?

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

Conservapedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How they compare:

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia, logo above

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

Conservapedia

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

US Democratic party

Wikipedia

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

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

Angmering 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment relocated

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

Adminship criteria

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

Ann Coulter

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

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

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

Fyslee

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

Re: Comments on Wikipedia Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey Invitation

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

User talk:David Spart/Chabad Messianism

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

Request for intervention on Lewis Libby dispute

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

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

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

Illuminating

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

Safarti article

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

Conflict of Interest

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

Me? Admin?

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

Conservapedia

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

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

You don't?

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

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

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

Protection

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

Nice joke! You're in BJAODN!

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

Thanks

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

Conservapedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	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 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Jon Swift

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

Recent edit to Partnership minyan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruckman edits

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

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

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

Wikinews

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

Habakuk

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

Parody vs Reality

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

Danny Brandt

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

secondary sources on Daniel Brandt

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

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

Reference

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

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

Daniel Brandt

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

Reply to user:Seicer

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

Wikipedia Community AfD

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

Community

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

MEMRI and Juan Cole mediations

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

RegisterFly

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

Danny Brandt's "contribution"

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Brandt

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

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

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

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

Your question

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

Legal threats by User:Paul Hartal

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

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

Roger J. Geronimo and Rochelle Holt

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

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	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 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PA on Sarfati page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boeing 747 and stealth deletion

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