User:Joyous!/Talk archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Latest vandalism[edit]

I apologise, but couldn't resist. If I've vandalized your page, surely you must change something -- but then there have been 28 incidents, so there's nothing to change. And if I haven't, then there have only been 27, so indeed I have. What, oh, what shall you do?

P.S. Please don't block my IP address for what I hope you will find vaguely amusing.-- 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reason for Corrections[edit]

Well, I don't think we've really ever met on an article, but I think I was trying to revert vandalism one day and kept getting beat to the punch by you. I just got a little annoyed and came and vandalized your vandalism count. I just happened to notice the busted links and HAD to fix them. If I caused you any offense, I am not really sorry (It had to be done). See ya around. --Lord Voldemort 28 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan updates[edit]

Please check [1] before updating the "Coalition casualties in Afghanistan" page.Copperchair 28 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)

I just corrected the numbers on this page. Please do not revert them again. Thank you.Copperchair 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)

If no one blanks the page or adds obvious vandalism, I'll have no need to ever edit that page again. Joyous June 29, 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Online Dating[edit]

I created a few articles weeks ago regarding Online dating.. How does a site get listed on the page ??? Please help. I know of a genuine site that has much to offer and should be on this list. What kind of article do I need to write in order for you not to ban it? I've looked on each one of the so-called articles on this list and I don't see how they are acceptable, yet mine were not. Please reply here and I will check back for your reply. THANK YOU. (posted by User:

Forgive me for eavesdropping. The sites listed on Category:Online dating get the following traffic ratings:
Yahoo! Personals           1
Adult FriendFinder        47
Tickle (dating service)  229
Eharmony                 560
OkCupid                 3241
This makes each of them very notable. The problem here is that it sounds like you want to use Wikipedia for advertising, which we do not allow. If the site in question is notable, and commentary on it can be written in a encyclopedic manner, then there may be a place for it on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, as well as all of our official policies at Category:Wikipedia official policy. 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
  • Uh, yeah. What that person just said. Joyous June 30, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
Sorry, I was that person, (I was trying to stay away on a wikibreak...but it just wasn't working) :) func(talk) 30 June 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • [] has traffic rank 1,615. Is it okay to add a page to a category if the article does not yet exist? ^.^ Also, [] had rank 844, and, although it has other uses, it is mostly used as a personals service. (Both numbers were taken from Gemini6Ice 30 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't have much of an opinion about and (BTW, external links just get single brackets on each end. Check out the markup on this edit to see exactly what I mean) I struggle with the concept of which external links are actually useful, and which fall under the heading of "advertising." The gray area is very large sometimes. If I were you, I'd ask that question Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). The anon user who asked the question on my talk page stepped WAY over the gray and into the black. He wrote an article on an online personals service that screamed ADVERTISEMENT, then linked it over and over and over into many articles, some of which only had a very tenuous connection to it. Joyous June 30, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
  • Well, I went ahead and actually created an article for Manhunt, so the issue I was worried about isn't one anymore. And since I'm not affiliated with them in any way (wait, well, I'm acquaintances with one of the designers for the Japanese version of their website... so I'm two degrees away, I guess), it's not advertising. I tried to make the article as informative as possible. There was also a link to the article before it existed on manhunt the disambiguation page. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Surprise stamps[edit]

I'm not too surprised about British Columbia and Vancouver Island, because I'm the creator of the article. :-) The terminology is a little odd, but it's standard among philatelists, and the joint stamp issue seems to be the only context in which one speaks of "British Columbia and Vancouver Island" rather than just one or the other. Since they only issued the one stamp, I supposed it would be OK, if graceless, to say "British Columbia and Vancouver Island postage stamp". Stan 30 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Reverting edits[edit]

Hey Joy, I just thought I'd ask you because I was in the process of removing vandalism from the Burger King page, but you beat me to it. When I remove vandalism, I do it line-by-line, comparing it to the earlier edits. Is there a simple way to revert an article to the previous version? Thanks! Fernando Rizo 2 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

  • Your answer on my talk page makes perfect sense. Thanks for the data dump, Joy :) Fernando Rizo 2 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Dennis Miller[edit]

Good luck. That guy (whose IP address varies somewhat from entry to entry) must be checking that article 100 times a day in order to put back his inane comments about Dennis Miller. I understand that if a vandal just affects one entry, admins are not likely to do much about it. And with an anonymous and varying logon, maybe it's not practical. In any case, I am uncertain how to see what other stuff that guy might be messing with. Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I checked the variants on his IP address, and his only target seems to be Dennis Miller. There seem to be several folks watching Miller's page, so I reckon we'll have to take turns from time to time until we can hunt down this nut and send a lightning bolt through his modem. >:) One more question: Do you have a way to "lock down" a page? I gather you do, but that you use that power sparingly. Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

A software-controlled lightning bolt. A capital idea! I saw something about a rule against a single user doing more than a certain number of reverts in one day... except to fix "vandalism", right? Not that I have all day for this (unlike the "mad vandal"). Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

The thing that saddens me a bit is that the well-intentioned liberal policy of allowing non-registrees to enter stuff is that it leads to this kind of thing. At least it's not obscene like some of the other stuff I've seen, just inane. But I was drawn to wikipedia because of the vast knowledge that seemed to be there, and stuff like this compromises its credibility. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :) Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)


One more thing, then I'll leave you be. A technical question I'm curious about. Do you really keep all the versions in full, or just the differences somehow? If it's in full, how much freakin' disc space do you all have? It must rival Google's. Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)


Hi Joy! Thanks for the rv on my userpage. JeremyA 3 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

  • I was beginning to think that the message on my userpage was working too! I've done a lot of RC patrol since I put it there and I hadn't been vandalised until now. I'm glad that it made you laugh. JeremyA 3 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

You're fast on the trigger![edit]

Sigh...I give up. A year ago, RC Patrol was fun. Now, everyone gets to the good vandalism before I do, especially you. ;-) func(talk) 3 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

That nice rollback button you have probably helps as well. :) func(talk) 3 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
Oh, no thank you. :) I'm sorry, as I read the above, it occurs to me that it may have sounded like I was asking you to ask me that...I wasn't. :) I am envious of the button, (or whatever it looks like :) ), but there isn't much else that adminship entails that I am currently interested in. And then there is the issue of timing: my involvement in Eequor's recent RfA coupled with my recent blanking of my own users pages would give the voters plenty of food for thought. ;-) I'm prepared to just deal with my now superfluous efforts on rc patrol. ;-) See ya round the 'pedia. :) func(talk) 3 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Kevin Painter[edit]

Thanks for rolling back to my revert on the Kevin Painter article; unfortunately, looks like that guy just doesn't want that stub! I don't want to be responsible for reverting the article several times a day, so I'll let someone else take care of it for now.

Sometimes, do you just feel like you should give up, and not try to help improve the little stubs? :) – Mipadi July 3, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Category linking[edit]

Sorry to run to you again Joy, but I'm putting the finishing touches on my Dennis Muren article, and I can't seem to get the :Category:1946 births link at the bottom to work. I've already added him to the 1946 article in the births section. What am I doing wrong? Thanks again! Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

  • I see where I went wrong. Thanks again, Joy; you're the best. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
  • WikiThanks Joy, I'd like to award you this WikiThanks barnstar for helping me out quickly and graciously over the last couple of days after I randomly approached you for help. Thanks again! Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Joy, I've got a problem...[edit]

I wanted to try and self-nominate myself again, but it appears that Cecropia made a bad call in dealing with my previous self-nomination... the moment I completed the first step of the self-nomination, the old self-nomination page came up. I tried moving it to my talkpage by copying the url of my talkpage, and ended up creating an entirely new article. I'd like some help getting out of this mess... could you please help me out? --Chanting Fox 4 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)

re: userpage lockdown[edit]

I'd appreciate that greatly, Joy. --Chanting Fox 4 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)


As a result of a disagreement at another site, a member has come to Wikipedia to change the definition of liberal <he deleted a segment>. I've noted the problem at the originating forum, and would put your page back the way it was before, but I'm not familiar with your 'revert' protocol.

If I'd realized what the fella was going to do <thank goodness he bragged about his intention>, I wouldn't have mentioned Wikipedia.

So sorry.




I think they are a good editor, just probably don't know about our NPOV. I've sent them a message telling them about it. Evil MonkeyHello July 6, 2005 02:49 (UTC)


Congratulations on the too many things that you are. :)

  • a teacher
    • Wikipedia, the perfect place to get away from thinking about school...hmm.
  • an atheist
    • I use to take the high moral ground of agnostism, until I decided dogmatic atheisim is just easier.
  • a book-lover
    • There are some states where that can get you arrested.
  • soon-to-be-married
    • Congratulations! :)
  • a sailor
    • Aye, aye.
  • a trivia-hound
    • I thought you liked cats, not hounds.
  • absent-minded
  • a snorkeler
    • Has it occurred to you that being an absent-minded snorkeler can be just slightly dangerous? ;-)

Eh, ignore me. I'm just slightly bored at the moment. :) func(talk) 7 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

I could be wrong in the counting, but this appears to be your 10,000 edit to Wikipedia, so congrats again! :) (Wow, am I ever bored). func(talk) 7 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

You need a hobby. Thanks for alerting me to #10,000. I wasn't keeping close track, and I missed it! Joyous (talk) July 7, 2005 12:05 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell[edit]

Boy, I hate it when we're both closing VfD discussions at the same time. I was working on this one and when I finally finished and hit save, found an edit conflict where you'd already closed it with a different decision. Here's what I came up with:

{{subst:vt}} ambiguous.

I count 7 "deletes", 4 "keeps" (one troll vote discounted) and 3 who either abstained or were too ambiguous to call.

The predominant argument for keeping was the google-count. After reviewing all the evidence, I consider the google-count argument to have been successfully refuted in this case. I am going to call this a "delete".

I guess I need to learn to count faster. Have a good evening. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Ms. Stovall's disimpaction[edit]

Ms. Stovall: You've foiled my first foray into Wikipedia mischief.

Incidentally, do you know who Dr. O'Halloran is?


Who is John Galt?


Hi there. U may not rem me[edit]

Hi there Joy. I just discovered the "message" function. I just came to wikipedia and u left me a msg lol.

Here it is:

Attention: This IP address,, is registered to Singnet (ISP in Singapore) and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks, Joyous (talk) July 3, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

I assume the 3rd paragraph is YOU speaking to me. I am sorry for mis-editing whatever it was I misedited.

I am just curious, since it is so long since i came to wikipedia.. exactly WHAT did I do?


  • I'm leaving the response here, since you'll probably enter via a different IP address next time. The "mis-editing" was this, but there's no way to tell who actually made the edit, since you are using a dynamic IP address. It could have been anyone. Joyous (talk) July 8, 2005 20:30 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting my user page. I appreciate it. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine as well. --jh51681 15:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Columbus Revert[edit]

Thanks for spotting the bad faith edits to the Columbus page. The ip before the one you caught had changed the page to note that Columbus set sail from Mexico in 1493 (which I must confess, as vandalism goes, it's pretty amusing). I reverted it back one more step. --Camipco 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on my talk page, it's always nice when someone appreciates the effort! I've been doing RC work for a while now and you start to get a feel for something that "smells" bad when you see it, that and the common vandal targets of course....anyway, thanks again! Rx StrangeLove 9 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Vfd for David tunney[edit]

leave the tunney page alone

you're welcome[edit]

and thanks for all the hard work on RC patrol! It's endless fun, no? :-) Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

Ditto on the good RC patrol work =). --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 03:43 (UTC)


Don't worry, I reported the vandal to WP:VIP and also helping you revert the pages. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)


Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my talk page! -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 16:45 (UTC)


Why are you reverting me? SPUI says on his talk page that he doesn't want modifications to his talk page reverted. Pull your head out of your ass.

Thank you so much for your kind message. Your mastery of civil language is truly breathtaking. It's habitual to revert edits to userpages that appear to be vandalism, as there are many more editors here who prefer NOT to have their pages "vandalized." However, since SPUI has made that request, I certainly will honor it. I hope you have a lovely day. Joyous (talk) 16:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

an RFC[edit]

you seem level headed, and uninvolve wit hte subject matter at hand, please, if you would, read the following page and pass judgement. Gabrielsimon 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


By your and Solipsist's request, I've restored the RFC. I hope it will be fruitful. Radiant_>|< 21:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Chance encounter[edit]

Hi Joy, just set up my own account here, and when reading up on how to merge water bears into tardigrade, I saw your user name in the discussion forum, and thought "wow, I didn't know individual users got pages!"

To be more than just a "hi I'm new here", I do have two questions. You mention the not-so-uncommon vandalizations of your personal page. why? I mean, it's not like your page offers any inflammatory opinions. I know the internet is full of idiots, but it seems like such a pointless waste of time to go around vandalizing users' pages.

Second, I see that you identify as a mergist, a stance that makes sense to me. Are there other intra-wikipedia political parties? Is there a listing of them somewhere? well it seems that rereading your opening page answered that one.

Thanks, Decapod73

This is overwhelming![edit]

Thanks for your reply!

I can't imagine how it can be expected that people on patrol keep up with the recent changes - I rewrote the Corn Snake artcle, scanned it very briefly, then went over to recent changes and already I had to hit the "last 250" button to see the edit. And there are so many small, insidious changes people can make that are less obvious than inserting "justin is gay", like changing or deleting another member's vote on a VfD discussion! The fact that this whole project stays up and running really is a testament to the fact that most people really are benevolent at heart, something hard to see demonstrated on many internet forums.

It's also not only staggaring how much has been done, but also how much is left to be done! My talk page now has a substantial to-do list, and those are only the articles that I can work with without doing tons of research. But then Wikipedia has always been inteded as a growing work-in-progress, and there's always time to fix things.

Finally, this must be enormously expensive to keep up and running! I see that there is a "donations" link in the navigation bar, but do those really ammount to enough to pay for all of the hosting, bandwidth, and possibly salaries for those in charge of wikimedia? Sorry if I'm asking beyond your range of knowledge, but you appeared to be a well-informed and experienced member. Decapod73 17:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


I made the Water article blank because someone had defaced it with inappropriate language. I didn't feel like typing out a definition for it.


Im not vandilizing your site ... this is a true article. (For some reason, User: chose not to sign this.)

No, that is why I created a wiki

This isn't nonsense ..

Then why does the article on "Jordan Golson" stand?

This page should be modified as soon as possible[edit]

What is the problem with that article? Joyous (talk) 15:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This looks like "wild goose" vandalism to me. Gemini6Ice 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
What is "wild goose" vandalism? The kind where the shit just happened to hit me? Joyous (talk) 17:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's where instead of just outright vandalizing your page as a prank, the person will leave something that essentially amounts to vandalism (by the purposelessness of it), but also makes you waste energy trying to follow the vandalism to something. Another example would be leaving a link to a non-existent article and asking your opinion on it. Gemini6Ice 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I think my definition is more poetic. Joyous (talk) 23:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, oops. I totally misread your comment and missed the entire joke. I read, "What is 'wild goose' vandalism? The kind of shit that just happened to me?" Yeah, your definition is awesome then. :) Gemini6Ice 03:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I have a question about photos. I'm unclear on what the policy is. I've seen photos that looked like they were basically scanned from some unknown source and posted. I wonder how much trouble I and/or you all would get into if I scanned an old photo for illustrative purposes here. The specific reason I'm asking is that I would like to post a photo of the "Baby Ruth" sign that was once visible from Wrigley Field, but I would have to scan a photo from an old book, an old postcard, or something like that. I realize I could just do it without asking. I mean, what's the worst they could do to me? Kidnap my first-born? No, probably they would just delete it. However, my question reminds me of this joke: A guy sees a bunch of cars illegally parked. He asks a cop, "Can I park there?" The cop says, "No!" The guy says, "What about those other cars?" The cop says, "They didn't ask!" (Taken, without permission, from The Joys of Yiddish). d:) Wahkeenah 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


File:White-throated Capuchin.jpg
The Wikipedia Cutest Monkey Award

Joy, I hereby award you the cutest looking monkey I could find on Wikipedia. If I had known that you always wanted a monkey, I would have done this much sooner! ;-)

Here were the runners-up:

This guy Image:Proboscis monkey.jpg just wasn't up to par, I'm afraid. :) func(talk) 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's housebroken! It is also into house music, and likes to eat the occational house fly. :) func(talk) 02:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I blame you for this. -- Cyrius| 00:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I am afraid that we can not transfer thousands of interactive web pages to explain what Music is, here. This is the Internet a link with description of what is at the other end of the link should be a better alternative. We have nothing to sell, we only offer free and unique knowledge which seems to be otherwise lacking here. How else can we provide effective information that can help clear up the current fuzz on this subject ?

Thank you.


"Were you User: before you logged in?" yes

"Our music theory articles could probably use your expertise" Theory is what you have when you do not have science.

Thank you. Akhu 04:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the little note you left on my talk page. It's much appreciated! :-) --HappyCamper 04:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Hello. I stopped by to thank you for restoring my page. Peace. :) deeceevoice 20:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also for restoring my talk page. Hyacinth 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

You sent me a message asking me to stop vandalizing pages or else I would be blocked. I am new to wickipedia and not only have I not (purposely)) "vandlaized" anything but I have no such knowledge on how to do so. If I have inadvertently caused some harm to the site please inform me as to how it happened so that I can be more cautious from now on.

Much Thanks,


Fiction / Non-Fiction for "Ebola"[edit]

Here's why I made the changes I did. I think the change I made was justified as the Fiction section was something of a rant:

I have edited out the "fiction" section and changed it to "non-fiction". Richard Preston's The Hot Zone was put in non-fiction sections of bookstores because it was published as non-fiction. It was supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant: the Sloan foundation does not support fiction and apparently was satisfied enough with RP to give him another grant.

"... In 2002, Richard Preston published The Demon in the Freezer, a bestseller about the first major bioterror event in the U.S. and the government's ongoing efforts to protect against smallpox and other potential bioweapons. Demon is Preston's first nonfiction book since the The Hot Zone, also supported by the Foundation."

Googling any of the significant names ("Nancy Jaax", "Gerald Jaax", "Peter Jahrling"--add "Ebola" and "Reston" to reduce results) in The Hot Zone will lead to authorative articles (CNN, *.edu, etc.) supporting the book.

The author of the "fiction" section seems to have felt that Preston over-dramatized. I have found no evidence to support that. While The Hot Zone suffers the usual faults of popular non-fiction books, it seems no worse than Blackhawk Down or All the President's Men, to name just two.

  • Ok, I can see your point. Thanks for the note, and I apologize for the revert. By the way, if you sign your messages with ~~~~, it makes it a lot quicker to get back to you. Joyous (talk) 15:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

What have i been vandalising?[edit]


  • I'm assuming you're referring to the message left on your talk page dated April 28. That was referring to a spam link that was left in an article. However, since you are not using a registered Wikipedia account, the message could have been intended for someone else who happened to edit under that IP address. The best way to avoid messages intended for someone else is to register for a free account. If you have any other question, please let me know.

By the way, signing your comments with ~~~~ makes it a lot easier to respond to your messages. Joyous (talk) 19:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)[edit]

My apologies if I am breaking any rules ... I simply wanted to share with others the really cool idea of customized clothing and there are some great sites out there that enable this type of product ... it is a knowledge resource for everyone (unsigned by User:

fictitious places[edit]

you're too fast for me! LOL. Hope we didn't miss any. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn from Wikipedia by Chaku Wiki. I love it! [2] Gemini6Ice 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)




                                   THANK YOU

Anonymous talk pages - edits and blanking[edit]

Hi Joy. Regarding your comments at the Pump about ownership of anonymous IP talk pages—I couldn't find any policy either. (There's nothing at Wikipedia:User page or Wikipedia:Talk page.) I've drafted a short addition to Wikipedia:Talk page that would cover anonymous IP talk pages; essentially it requires that comments and warnings stay up for at least a week so that other admins and RC patrollers can see any relevant remarks. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Talk page/Anonymous talk pages proposal, feel free to comment. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My appreciation[edit]

Thanks for your help in reverting the vandal who was spuriously adding my name to various articles. An oddity: The same IP had been used, only two hours earlier, to create a stub about Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak. I thought it might be a hoax, but it turns out to be a real child actor. He's appearing in a TV series that was mentioned in the stub but with a red link, so I did a little research and wrote Over There (series). Thus the siege of vandalism resulted in a small expansion of our coverage. Strange are the ways of the wiki. JamesMLane 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, yeah...[edit]

Yes indeed, I would. Thanks for the chuckle! (laugh at me, but I actually Googled it to see if it was true... LOL...) Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

fred jones[edit]

thank you for helping me out! I really didnt want it to say Fred Jones Teaching

thank you for switching it to Fred Jones (educator)!



Deleted Links[edit]

Hello Joy,

You recently deleted several of my links considering them irrelevant to the discussions on those pages (auras, pranic healing]. They are not commercial nor are they off topic. Interesting that the aura page is full of skeptics but no room for information on how to see one quite simply. Not to worry, I will not be adding any more links since it appears to upset the apple cart. No one is paying me to share. Try reading the topic of note and the link before you press the delete button for a change.

It's a gray area. They don't seem to be commercial links, but they do seem to be self-promotion, or at any rate someone promoting a single website, which we consider to be spamming. If the person is actually contributing to the articles I usually cut them a bit more slack. If we allowed this kind of behavior routinely we'd be a giant link-farm, and quite overrun with links, serving mainly to increase the google rank of other sites. Hope this helps... Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Please remember to use subst when warning users. For example {{subst:test}} -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. Please contribute? Radiant_>|< 15:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Insert Disc Two[edit]

Hi, Joy. Started in in early 2005 doesn't sound very promising, does it? A google on "Insert Disc Two" "Chris Dunkle" turns up 14 hits, also doesn't sound so good. The final problem: has no traffic rating for the site whatsoever. func(talk) 14:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it was all very polite: Innocent? Sometimes IP ranges or shared proxies are blocked from editing Wikipedia. This means that lots of innocent people can't edit.... blah, blah, blah. :) func(talk) 15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Joy! :) Oh, yeah, the VFD...bit of an odd activity for me to be engaging in on my b-day. :) So I'm off to eat cake.... func(talk) 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Don't you think the word cranton needs to be absorbed into the English language?

Don't you think the time has come? (user:

I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia's purpose is. It's not intended to establish the notability of a newly created word. We document things AFTER they've become widely used and recognized. Joyous (talk) 01:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


Bush baby is a nickname for George W. Bush. I suggest you leave it in.

Re: Shay[edit]

No, I only really know the railroad meaning which is behind Shay locomotive. My first thought was to make Shay just a redirect to the more complete article, but then I looked at the talk page and the other tools. I found the other meaning through the "What links here" tool, and not being a follower of music from later than 1945, I had no real idea of the other's notability. It seemed safer to err on the side of notability since there were two links that mentioned the name. Perhaps it should be a redirect to Shay locomotive after all? slambo 00:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and done. slambo 13:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's ok....[edit]

I'll just wait until my IP get's renewed.

Vandalism in progress at 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

Joy, is doing some serious conspiracy POV pushing on the London bombings article. I reverted him once and left him the NPOV welcome message on his talk page, but he went right back to the article. I'm not an admin and I don't want to get into a 3RR situation with this person, so I'm officially Passing The Buck to you! Thanks, Fernando Rizo T/C 03:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • So today, I stumbled up where I should have gone with this info, as opposed to bugging you with it. Sorry, Joy; I'm still kind of learning the ropes here. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Sobhraj page protection[edit]

Hi Joy, thanks for your reverts on Charles Sobhraj but the page was protected with vandalism still in it (the first sentence of the "Murders" section). Could you fix this ASAP? Thanks. Lawrence Lavigne 11:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


I noticed on your edit count that ou have nearly 12,000 edits to this encyclopedia [[3]]. I think it is a shame that you haven't received much recognition for this (or if you just don't post awards anywhere). By the way, I like the new style of your user page.

Original Barnstar.png

Happy editing.Dbraceyrules 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar; that's very kind. I don't know whether to be happy that I have so many edits, or mortified that I spend so much time here. Joyous (talk) 22:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You're more than weclome. Besides, one thing I abhor about Wikipedia is the lack of recognition given to editors. Dbraceyrules 23:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is a judgement. All content is valid on Wikipedia.[edit]

(unsigned edit by User:67:166.73.202)

Once again, all judgements. I'm adding content to these catagories that is valid. Useful? Probably not. But usefulness does not indicate validity in the Wiki world.[edit]

Go to

How can I put a picture of Mr. Harris on the Article

Vandalism Warning[edit]

Joyous-- you left a level 1 vandalism message on the page for User: This is an IP from which I sometimes make edits on accident (when I forget to log in). On that user's contributions page Special:Contributions/ I can see no indication of any vandalism. What's going on? Since I've added my name to that user's page it may reflectly badly upon me. 03:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just saw you left a note saying it was a test. :) Sorry! Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexy Spam?[edit]

Hi, Joy. :)

Yeah, I think the additions to the "Prostitution in ..." pages are just pure spam. As far as the edits to Sex tourism go, they currently are POV, with stuff like "People who are not familiar with sex tourism need to understand that there is a very distinct difference between legal sex tourism and illegal child sex tourism".

As for whether or not the site should get a mention at all on that page, I'm not sure. They get an traffic rating of 85,809, and ... OH: guess what, it's a membership only site, so that simplifies things: SPAM!!! ;-)

Need help reverting? :) Func( t, c ) 17:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a distinction between sex tourism and child sex tourism.
Er, yes, I'm sure there is. :) Sorry, I just meant the tone sounded POV. Your edits look great, as usual. :)
cowsman...uh...I mean, func
We get the strangest vandals around here, don't we? ;-) Func( t, c ) 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Unhappy vandal[edit]

the only thing joyous about deleting other people articles is the fact that we'll know that you won't pollute the world with your genes since you will never leave the computer.

Have fun with your lack of life, puzzle guzzler (unsigned edit by User:


I just added merge tags to Chinese constellation and lunar mansion, and later relented, settling for adding the two articles to one another's "See also" sections. Does this mean I'm a faithless mergist, or an inclusionist who is occasionally tempted toward mergism? --Eric Forste (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

See reply on Arkuat's other talk page

I've seen enough of what you've written to know that you're no fortune cookie, but as your "fortune cookie" reply goes, you make an excellent fortune cookie, too. --Eric Forste (Talk) 04:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Have a monkey for all your good work and for having the user below vandalise you. I also reverted your rollbackon J.J. Arrington and Aaron Rodgers, the links didn't look like spam. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

They seem ok to me. I won't quit wikipedia and commit suicide if you revert them back and do the rest, but I think they are usefull. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Great. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
MONKEY of personal attacks
I have a suspicion that User:Gaaraxxx and User:Xxx123 are socks, and I've told Kelly Martin, but she doesn't like me, so that's why I'm telling you. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think of that. Well, I thought I'd let some admins know my suspicion. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

greetings you fucking ugly dog[edit]

you live in da fucking trash can and you tell me not to vandalize shit you fucing pussy licker

(User:Gaaraxxx forgot to sign this, for some reason.) Joyous (talk)

test warning templates[edit]

I was actually sad to see that the template titles weren't something like "polite warning," "slightly less polite warning," "gettin' cranky warning," and "Red-hot irate warning." But I don't think that would pass muster with most Wikipedians. Joyous (talk) 22:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I tried, I figured Polite warning and Discontinue warning were alright, but I guess not. I gave it my best efforts. No harm done. Thanks for your note. Who?¿? 04:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on my Napoleon edits. It's so nice to hear that one's work goes noticed, and nicer still to know there are fellow adults using this site! Congratulations on your upcoming wedding :)

Regards, Rich RJSampson 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

hey.. adam burkutally[edit]

I'm going to fix up the article on Adam Burkutally. I am a banking investment manager and am keen to let the world know what they're in for. Adam is a true no-brainer when it comes to scucess and he deserevs more recognition, I will go through my post and back it up with more links and linked information. Thanks for the note!


Ok. Then I'm going to spread Squirrely Wrath right here. If you don't mind.


This is the website to go to to watch Foamy movies. But there is a Parental Advisory for language and maybe some violence. Foamy is one of the funniest characters I have ever seen. I hope you like it.

Thanks for the lesson[edit]

Hmmm ... So I tried a naive edit on one of the main Wiki pages. I then read the rest of the page and realized that although the issue may well never be closed completely, it has indeed been thought about and evolved at such length already that I should not have written my note without further simple and obvious research.

When I went back to remove my silly note, I saw your message. From a live person just a few moments ago, I guess? And my note was already gone as well. Fascinating.

I think I've even figured out how to respond to you (without being so totally obnoxious as to mess with a publicly-significant page).

                               -- Mark Goldfain

The Squirrel of Wrath[edit]

Joy, would you mind if I permablocked the next time? It's a pure vandal account, and I think it's specially offensive the way it keeps wantonly messing up one article, a non-controversial, very good high culture article (by Geogre). It went right back to the article after my 24-hour block. Oh, hello there,, I see the unsigned message "Uhh...Yeah..." above is from you. Do you think it's fun for the authors of the article too to see it messed up over and over again? The Sandbox has instructions, please just use it. Bishonen | talk 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the anon's message was changed just before I managed to save. I hope that "ok" means "ok"., please just don't bring the squirrelly wrath to my Talk, I'm not in the mood for it, today or any other day. Bishonen | talk 04:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Still wondering[edit]

Ah. I looove the Marx brothers. I even managed to get my kids to watch a bunch of their movies as part of their education. Duck Soup was pretty zaney. My favorite is Monkey Business, but I realize there were a lot of things that I missed in some of them.

I see on your page that you're listed as a "janitor". So cleaning up the garbage is part of your job, eh? I'll have to think about that. Having a group of active "janitors" sounds a lot like having "editors" who have to approve suggested corrections or additions. So in a way the whole thing is much closer to what I'd have imagined would work best than it first sounds.

I see that what I first did would be labeled vandalism (pretty much). If a vandal and a janitor both sit there making their changes back and forth for a day or two, and there have been say 100 edits each ... someone has the power to censor the vandal, right? And whoever has that power is effectively approving or disapproving content then, right? Is the difference only one of style -- an attempted openness -- or is there a real difference?

Perhaps I should read more articles rather than asking you, questions that are probably in an FAQ list.

                           -- Mark

You are raising some interesting points.

  • Having a group of active "janitors" sounds a lot like having "editors" who have to approve suggested corrections or additions.

I'm only "approving" edits in a very broad sense. What I was doing when I caught and removed your earlier edit is called "Recent Changes patrol," or "rc patrol," for short. We have a page here that lists every edit made to every article in real-time. I only review edits made by anonymous users, and I'm not really looking for incorrect facts. I'm checking for out-and-out vandalism. ANY editor can reverse such edits, my "special powers" as an administrator/janitor just mean that I can do it with one click, so I can be a little more efficient.

What really makes the site work (in my humble and somewhat sleepy opinion) are the personalized watchlists. Every editor can add any article to a watchlist, so that whenever an edit is made to that article, it shows up on the list. I keep watch over about 500 articles right now, which sounds like a lot, but checking them only takes a few minutes. My watched articles are composed of some that just interest me, all the articles that I've started, and those that call a siren call to vandals, like penis and Dick Cheney. Frequently-vandalized articles may be on the personal watchlists of 100 editors, so if one person doesn't catch and revert a problem edit, another will pretty soon.

  • If a vandal and a janitor both sit there making their changes back and forth for a day or two, and there have been say 100 edits each ... someone has the power to censor the vandal, right?

Wikipedia has a three-revert rule that says one editor may not revert an article more than 3 times in any 24-hour period. However, an exception to that is if the reverts are to remove vandalism. Now, if someone comes along, (let's call him "Skunk") and drops a "Justin is SO gay!!" comment into an article on penguins, I'll revert the edit, and then leave a fairly polite message on his talk page. Often, Skunk continues. But now, I'm watching him a little more closely. If he continues, the messages get rather less polite, and ultimately, if he's a stubborn Skunk, he'll get blocked from editing. The block is usually for 24 hours, because that's beyond the attention-span of the most common vandals. Let's face it--most of them are bored kids on summer vacation.

  • 'And whoever has that power is effectively approving or disapproving content then, right? Is the difference only one of style -- an attempted openness -- or is there a real difference?

I think there is a real openness, because every edit is so transparent. For example, I can guarantee that when you posted your comment on my talk page, 20 people noticed that an anonymous editor had edited MY page, and dropped by to check it out and make sure that it wasn't a big ol' "go to hell and stay there" message. If I roll back an edit to the penguin article, the 60 people who have the article on their personal watchlists are going to check the edit to see what changed. And that's not counting the people who are monitoring all recent changes to all articles. I can absolutely guarantee that people are happy to drop by and berate you if you make a change that's not to their liking. If an edit is controversial, discussion can take place on the talk pages that accompany every article. (There's a link at the top of each article that says "discussion.")

A further aid to transparency is that every version of every page is saved. Look at the top of this page, at the tab marked "history." Click that tab. You'll see a list of every edit that's been made to this page. I can't sneak in an edit and then say "oh, I didn't do that," because the difference is right there. If there's not enough history on your page to be interesting, go back to Wiki and click the history tab. See where you made the edit that caught my attention? From the history page, you can see where I reverted the edit. On your talk page here, look to the left, to the link that says "user contributions." If you click that link, you can see every edit that's been made from this IP address. Those are saved permanently. I can look back to my contributions and see all 12,000 edits that I've made since I first arrived over a year ago. Nothing gets hidden.

There are squabbles about keeping a neutral point of view, and discussion/arguments about what kinds of articles do and don't belong, but I think that somehow a marvelous thing has been created here. I'm proud to be a part of it. Joyous (talk) 05:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issue on definition of Caulbearer[edit]

Hiya Joyous,

Just a line (or two maybe) on the copyright issue on the definition of caulbearer you edited earlier. As I am the webmaster of I can give permission to use the text presented in my definition/article on Wikipedia, which I've just started to explore today. Aladdin's cave!! i just used some of the info there to save my poor little fingers! Anyway, I'm not sure if an email from me while wearing my webmaster hat would help resolve the issue. The site email is

Regards Denis Mc Gowan

Hi, Denis. I'm sorry about tagging your article as a copyright problem; I didn't realize that you held the copyright. Most articles that originate from a website are flat-out stolen.

For starters, you might want to put a note on the article's discussion page stating that you are the copyright holder. Also, follow the link on the copyright violation notice and leave a similar note on the Big List of Potential Copyright Violations where your entry is.

Copyright notice

Permission granted for use of text by the Webmaster of who may be contacted at Webmaster Notice date: 31st July 2005. Denis Mc Gowan

Cheers Joy :)

If you have any other questions or problems, please let me know. Joyous (talk) 20:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes i have, it was an old refrence book in the Oxford library, that analysed Francis Bacon's book "The New Atlantis".

high-speed reverts[edit]

Hi, Joy! You must have messaged me just before I went to make dinner. :)

Did you rev up your keyboard?

Nope, not my keyboard, my User:Func/monobook.js subpage. :) I've decided to finally try to put my professional skills to use on Wikipedia. That, coupled with my recent discovery that command-clicking a link in my Safari browser will open it in a new tab, (previously, I was using the contextual pop-up menu). I've got the vandal bastards on the run now, whoopie! :) Eh, maybe I should try writing an article or two every once in a while too, huh? ;-) Functc ) 22:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me? Vandalizing Wiki? I would never think of doing such a thing, as a member of academia I value Wikipedia greatly. Your mere suggestion is greatly offensive.

Perhaps my being on a dialup IP, you are confusing ther actions of someone else with me? All I have done on this IP is edit an article that a friend wrote for spelling and formatting... is that against Wikipedia's rules? -- 01:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You will need to provide her with more context that that. Your edit history only shows 2 edits, both of them to this page. What article are you referring to? Functc ) 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I was on the way leaving my vacation house and really over reacted. It was an article titled 'Computer Years' when I first went to edit it from clicking the link above, it said there was no article, and if it was recently created to try a link called 'purge' I did and it worked. I edited two or three times (kept making a typo). I know the article was of questionable nature, but my friend entered it and I figured I would let the possible deletions be made by those who do so, and just fix the spelling. Next thing I know the article was gone and I had a message on my user page from Joy. In the car earlier this evening I read her entire User talk page and it has inspired me to join Wiki and work with some of the Recent Changes patrol. I was just upset when I saw the warning of a potential ban on my user talk page. I guess I overreacted and it must have been from a past IP or something. I'm showing up on a different IP now because I'm home now. I'm going to register an account to use from now on to avoid this sort of thing. -- 04:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


i reckon that vandalism is COOOL!!!!! 1337 F u, u cant block us, i got 1000 ips and masking


Thanks for fixing the blanked JAXASS article. I realize its still under VfD, but its nice to see its defended even in disputed status. Thanks for the help. Sleepnomore 05:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism[edit]

Hi, Joy. I saw that you recently warned on his/her talk page for a final time, but s/he continued vandalizing by adding gibberish and making a minor vandalization. I support blocking his/her IP. --Flex 15:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)