User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This is not a perfect chronological archive since I kept some still active conversations and notices on the active talk page.

Contents 1 Our RfAs 2 Blacklisting a webpage 3 guidelines/help needed 4 Blocking policy 5 Sam Spade RfC 6 Pianka controversy 7 Please be sure to use talk pages 8 Re: Pro-Lick 9 RFA 10 Good faith 11 Serbian nationalist editors 12 Questions 13 My rFA 14 67.160.36.12 15 Thanks 16 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 17 EAS 18 Barnstar 19 Bribery 20 Ethics in the Bible 21 Kusma's RfA 22 thanks for the support 23 AFD 24 Re: Kilo's rfa 25 stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page 26 DBAD 27 ProhibitOnions's RfA 28 A KISS Rfa Thanks 29 My RFA 30 RFA 31 Thank you 32 Chuck... 33 password 34 RE: Your RfA 35 YECs 36 My RfA 37 Follow Up 38 Admin 39 tb2's reporting 40 List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years 41 LaRouche 42 No prob 43 AFD 4 on the Game 44 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki 45 Master Jay's RfA 46 I've answered your questions 47 Your question... 48 Spoiler notice 49 Lesser degrees 50 vandal i just blocked . . . 51 Rasputin 52 Stargate project 53 my RFA 54 Attribution: 55 The Game (game) 56 Request for Help 57 RfC comment 58 September 11, 2001 attacks 59 The Game 60 Village pump 61 Template:HealthDisclaimer 62 Irony, hypocrisy 63 Whats vote stacking? 64 FYI 65 Malthusians re Eric Pianka 66 Perhaps you should ba an Admin 67 Comparative Embryology 68 Signpost updated for April 24th 69 Please don't go around accusing me of a being a sockpuppet 70 Just another RFA thank you note (after little cleanup) 71 Hoax tagger 72 User:72.140.99.7 73 Why FF Coppola should be impaled 74 RE: The Game 75 Which sources are missing in "Controversy"? 76 Meme 77 My RfA 78 Re: Failed adminship tallies 79 Thanks for voting on my RfA 80 Tally 81 Re: The Game deletion review 82 Votes 83 My RfA 84 Deleting Unsourced Material on 9/11 conspiracy 85 False vandalism revert 86 Spam to multiple users (13 of them) 87 rfa 88 Hello 89 Personal Question 90 A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks) 91 Signpost updated for May 1st. 92 AA Arbitration 93 "Textbook" 94 7 vs 9 Chevrons 95 Makeup 96 Alleviating concerns 97 Thank you 98 remove AiG advert, keeping in link to AiG article 99 Off-wiki personal attacks poll 100 Answer 101 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade 102 Discussion page cleaning 103 Addition of "That Crazy Guy" to "Chick Publications tracts" 104 RFA 105 My RFA 106 Thank you! 107 Hyles 108 formatting 109 Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2 110 ARV 111 Thanks

[edit] Our RfAs

Hi JoshuaZ. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisting a webpage

Hola, on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you told me I had to get a webpage blacklisted. Could you tell me how that is done?Rosa 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Essjay Prodego ^talk 13:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] guidelines/help needed

Hello, Thanks for showing me the way how wikipedia works. Maybe you can have a look at these articles, and investigate if they are written according to the guidelines:

• Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Historical_overview:

The fragment “the present cabinet, which is one of the most right wing cabinets since the late 19th century” is far from neutral, but I could not convince the rest of wikipedia this was the case..

• The article about David Irving contains a lot of negative editing against him. For example, o October 11, a user called user:Redzen put some intelligent-looking quotes from Irving on the page, and they were quickly removed. However, when Irving is making some stupid remarks, these remarks are still there (under ‘racism’). I am as much a fan of Adnan Oktar as of David Irving, but when one gets a neutral treatment, the other should get it as well.

Could you do something about these 2 articles? Thanks Jeff5102 07:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The key here is WP:NPOV and WP:V. For example, in the Oktar article you referred to "absurd rhetoric." That's NPOV, and unsourced, essentially opinion. In the cases of the Irving and Netherlands the comments are sourced and not opinions of Wikipedians. For example, in the Irving article, it gives examples of his racist comments, it doesn't say "Irving is a racist ass whose only appeal is to idiots and brutes." Sourced, negative information does not violate WP:NPOV, general editorial remarks do. I hope that example clarifies matters. JoshuaZ 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

Hi. I assume that the new proposed blocking policy hasn't been implemented yet? You can still slap a temp-ban on the user (User:65.197.192.130) though, can't you?

Question for you: What's to stop me (for example) from vandalising consistantly, and yet still contributing many useful edits to Wikipedia.. anonymously? --Mal 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, not much really. But if an anon IP is really bad, people will start to keep track of that IP's contrib list, to prevent large scale damage and will block much faster. Also, if an IP is sufficiently problematic, the provider may be contacted. JoshuaZ 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I think you understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think that policy, as it stands, is not good enough. For example, I spent a few minutes having a look at the IP's contribs list, fixing the vandalised pages, adding a level 4 warning template, and following up afterwards (plus this discussion we're having). Instead of which, I cuold have been editing articles and otherwise contributing to the 'pedia. As it turns out, no action is going to be taken against this vandal (or vandals as the case may be).. so that has meant basically that my time has been wasted (other than to have fixed vandalism which shouldn't really have got through in the first place).

Don't get me wrong though - obviously I appreciate the work you (and other admins) put in to the alert pages and time taken to deliberate on issues etc etc. I just felt that I needed to vent my frustration at the policy as it stands. I'd love to hear your personal opinion and thoughts on the matter. Cheers. --Mal 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, I'm not an admin yet. But yes, I strongly agree that the current policy on IPs is not strict enough. JoshuaZ 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh right.. I didn't reealise that anybody could deliberate on the Vandal alert page. Anyway ... have you taken part in the voting regarding the blocking policy? --Mal 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, really I shouldn't have. The main reason I made the comment there was to make sure the admin who handled it knew that some good edits had been coming from that IP (which should be taken into account when determining block times). I haven't completely made up my mind yet about the new blocking policies. JoshuaZ 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade RfC

Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity0 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is, write your own section in the "disputes" section detailing his actions. This RfC isn't meant to be about the specific dispute at any article, but the general pattern of behaviour he sometimes engages in when he meets opposition. -- infinity0 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time for that right now, and I think KillerChihuaha was talking about doing that. If she does add to the dispute section, I'll move my sig back up to basis rather than endorse. JoshuaZ 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pianka controversy

• Thanks for adding the info about Pianka's response to Forrest Mims' comments. For my own edification, can you point me to a source? (It's probably _really_ obvious, but I can't seem to get Google to cough it up....) For that matter, could you also add the link to the Mims page when you get a chance? Thanks much. MarcoTolo 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, there are a few sourced in the Pianka article. I'll go snag one from over there and move it to Mims. JoshuaZ 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be sure to use talk pages

Hey Joshua

Please try to use "talk" pages when making changes to articles.

Although it isn't unheard of, it isn't the best etiquette to visit pages, and revert immediately. I'll assume you are acting in good faith on Ron Dellums, that is, that you came across on the article on your own and evaluated it, and determined what changes would be best, and made them. But, it might look a little better if the future you express your opinion as to why your changes are needed and also attempt to add meaningful content to articles.

That particular article has been frequented by users that know very little about Dellums and haven't shown any willingness to research the man.

Take care, Justforasecond 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pro-Lick

Hi Josh.

No, I didn't ask about the blog, and Pro-Lick didn't say anything about it in our communication. I'm honestly not too worried about it. Maybe you could suggest to Pro-Lick that taking that post down would be a sign of good-faith, and a good bridge-mending step? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Does it look OK to you now? --Dangherous 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

Joshua, I've asked you nicely to leave talk page messages to describe why you are making changes. I'd appreciate if you took me up on the offer.

Justforasecond 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be pretty obvious; the other version was the consensus version, yours was not. Furthermore, the others reasoning seemed sound. Hence I reverted to the consensus. JoshuaZ 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian nationalist editors

Hi Joshua. I see you have noticed the influx of Serbian nationalist editors, and are following closely. I originally tagged Zadar Kristallnacht for POV on my WP:NP patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following very closely. User:CeBuCCuCmeM popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created Template:Persecution of Serbs, which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Are you interested in investigating? Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems highly unlikely that a first-day editor would know that templating exists, let alone how to create such a complex template.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been actually paying that much attention to the problem. Its just very blatant. In fact, until you mentioned this I had no idea about that template, or that new user. It may make more sense to discuss it here where sockpuppetry of this sort has already been brought up, [1]. JoshuaZ 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may want to bring it up at WP:RFCU. JoshuaZ 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I can't really think of a match. Can I submit open-ended requests, or do I have to suggest a match. It could be any of the Serbian warriors.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one isn't allowed to go on general hunts, but if you have a plause example you can ask for him to check Bormalagurski for example, and note that its a general problem with the Serbian POV pushers, and they might turn up info on the checkuser that connects the sock to someone else. Slight gaming of the system, but acceptable. In any event, I would be highly unsurprised if this were Borma. JoshuaZ 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I know, I was just wrapping up my responses, thanks for being alert though :) -- Tawker 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rFA

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm stumped. There was a question "What do you understand will happen at the end of this five day discussion process?" What on earth is this 5 day discussion period of which User:Robchurch speaks? The RFA is a 7 day discussion period. Have I missed something? --Dangherous 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67.160.36.12

I've blocked 67.160.36.12 for 24 hours for vandalism, harassment etc. Please let me know if he continues to be a problem and I'll handle it.Gator (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, that is I think the same vandal that made the User:Joshuaz (note lower case z) impostor earlier. I really don't understand what his problem is with me, he seems to think I did something on some other forum he was involved in. JoshuaZ 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It is one thing that Wikipedia does not do very well with--when the vandals themselves start giving out warnings. Keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Scientific community The Kids Will Have Their Say Hypothesis Ex nihilo The Genesis Flood Hugo Claus Infinity Watch Francis J. Beckwith Rumble in the Bronx Creator deity Divine simplicity Neptunism McDonogh School No Answers in Genesis National Center for Science Education WCWM Natural theology List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors Separation of church and state in the United States

Cleanup Islamic creationism Mathematical coincidence Flathead Lake Merge Resurrection of the dead Biblical cosmology Bill Gothard Add Sources Post-feminism Toba catastrophe theory Extra-sensory perception Wikify Steve DeVito Social Liberals (Austria) George Seddon AM Expand List of British entomological publishers Random variate God complex

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EAS

JoshuaZ,

Please review the Enterprise Audit Shell. Please understand that EAS is simply a new version of the EXISTING software sudosh which already has a wiki article. EAS == Sudosh. I've also updated the discussion page. Also note that Freshmeat, SourceForge and the Sudo maintainer have blessed Enterprise Audit Shell and that I have 3rd party validation. This isn't simply a small program, tooting my own horn, or spam. It's just confusing because of the name change from Sudosh to EAS.

[edit] Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For one amazing explaination on your support vote (and the great job of keeping the counts up to date) - Keep up the good work! :) Tawker 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have taken the liberty of moving the Barnstar to my Things page. JoshuaZ 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bribery

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship The servers are based in Florida yes? So one doesn't have as much in direct bribery, but one has other options. These include finding the right person to have a very quick affair with, helping stuff ballot boxes, helping remove valid ballots, being a lobbyist and paying for the person to go to an excotic location for their "research" as to whether you should deserve an account. Also, just having a dinner or lunch meeting at a very expensive restaurant and paying for that. But no bribery, not in the US, they would never have bribery. Did I miss any other common behaviors that are definitely not bribery? JoshuaZ 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

lol ; ) FloNight ^talk 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics in the Bible

" Among religions which treat these sciptures as divinely sourced, is there controversy as to whether some immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss, is controversial. " This is in the form of a declarative sentence, but the information content appears to be a question. Are you attempting to ask if there is controversey concerning if the fact that the Bible does not discuss some immoral acts might be controversial? I have reverted the paragraph because the current version does not make sense (or at the very least, is in no way clear). Dan Watts 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "there is" rather than "is there" I'll fix it and revert back if you don't object. JoshuaZ 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you can change it so that there are not two usages of 'controversey' in one sentence. That is much more readable. Dan Watts 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kusma's RfA

Hello, JoshuaZ! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. It was interesting to think about your questions; I still am trying to figure out what my perspective on adminship from the WP:PNT point of view is. Anyway, if you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the support

Hi JoshuaZ- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa. Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page! --He:ah? 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hey JoshuaZ, I replied to your comments on the talk page of AFD. Just wanted to let you know I've written my bot to update the yesterday pages from now on. Cheers! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kilo's rfa

Thank you for your reminder. I have seen these answers.--Jusjih 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC

[edit] stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page

Read over the relevant articles and talk pages. It's not about a "vote", its about "fact-finding", and if you don't have the time for fact-finding, please stop vandalizing my talk page. pat8722 19:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall using the word vote. My point was simply that when many users (such as KillerChihuahua) who have been on Wikipedia much longer then you have tell you that you are misunderstanding the relevant policies and guidelines, it might be because you are misunderstanding them. JoshuaZ 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it might be because I'm not. If you don't have the time to investigate, STOP [personal attacks deleted by [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda]MY TALK PAGE. pat8722 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have looked into it, and Killer is quite correct. JoshuaZ 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It takes FACTS, not CONCLUSIONS, to establish "who" is correct. An unsupported conclusion is MEANINGLESS. Furthermore, an allegation of vandalism is not prohibited under the personal attacks rule. An allegation of vandalism requires "fact finding". As it appears a small cabal can result in blocks against one who is STRICTLY FOLLOWING ALL WIKIPEDIA POLICY, I suspect you will block me if I again revert your vandalism of my own talk page today. So I will be back tommorrow to revert your vandalism of my talk page, while awaiting a real resolution of the real dispute, over whether William Connelley [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. pat8722 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowingly false accusations of vandalism are person attacks. Please desist. While you may have misread the vandalism policy, it's been explained to you why that was not vandalism. Guettarda 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no wikipedia policy. Does JoshuaZ, or any admin, or other, have "power" to permanently stop a user from editing their own talk page? If he tries to do that, would I then have to find another admin to engage in what I think is termed a "wheel war", so that I can re-edit it again? It's seeming very arbitrary to me at present, almost like any admin can do whatever he wants and its all a matter of who is willing to be dirtiest and who is in a political majority. I also don't understand why you are blanking out the word "vandalizing", is there a list somewhere that says that it is a prohibited word? I don't see you blanking out "vandalism", just "vandalizing", how come? You can respond here, as I have placed this on my watchlist. pat8722 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the libertarian talk page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean? and see the libertarian talk page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see connelley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the wikipedia: vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". What is the procedure for removing your unfounded warnings from my talk page, without fear of being blocked for doing so? pat8722 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this on my talk page just now:

[edit] DBAD

Please read m:Don't be a dick (In this case we can mean dick to mean head louse rather than penis), so give it a break, please. It is boring. — Dunc|☺ 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete this under your definition of reverting "warnings"? pat8722 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not be violating any formal rule by deleting it, however, in general removing comments from talk pages is strongly frowned upon without a very good reason. As for removal of warnings, if you can find an admin who agrees with you, that admin can presumably talk to whoever placed the warnings and then decide if they should stay or not. As a last resort, you can go to WP:ANI and make a complaint there, however I caution against it. I hope that helps. JoshuaZ 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, JoshuaZ/Archive001!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

It appears you voted on my RFA and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, How did you know that was me? JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1337 hax! I checked the contribs of one of the other edits from the IP, saw you then edited with the edit summary "Whoops, wasn't logged in", and put 2 and 4 together to get 7. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you! Hello JoshuaZ/Archive001. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

[edit] Chuck...

Good move... Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) Mikker ^(...) 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] password

I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- Curps 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your RfA

I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my RFA. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YECs

Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by Ken Ham, which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Wikipedia of something I have learned, I try to add it.

Since I am new to both Wikipedia and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. Liberty4u 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. JoshuaZ 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

I've answered the questions that you posted here. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

So wait...are you an admin?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Why did you think I was? JoshuaZ 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. JoshuaZ 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, just give me the word when the time comes and I'll do it.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tb2's reporting

What would you like to see? Any ideas? joshbuddy^talk 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years

Hello,

I've added the reference to the deletion review of List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years you asked for.

Regards, Nick Mks 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. JoshuaZ 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. As far as the copyright is concerned, the image was created and released by a Wikipedian as a merge of 50 NASA images. The astronomical reason that eclipses occur less often at the poles is relatively simple, why the South Pole is even more discriminated is less obvious. For more information, I recommend [2] and [3]. If the article is recreated, I will include the explanation in it. Nick Mks 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the new version will be an excellent article. JoshuaZ 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche

Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. JoshuaZ 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No prob

That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD 4 on the Game

There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Jay's RfA

Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I've answered your questions

I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question...

Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't really want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No strong preference, although if you answer it here you may want to put a note there that you are answering it on my talk page (and by the way, if you think an answer to it will muck up the RfA page you should take a look at Tawker's final RfA). JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think most questions can best be handled by directly asking the candidate themselves on their talk page, and Tawker's RfA was crazy. To be frank, my last RfA explains much of what happened in the past. To sum it up, I had an issue with a certain editor who tended to bring out the worst in people, namely, me. He did so, and I made a small personal attack on my user page. Then an Admin, Rhobite, scolded me and I attacked him childishly. I have apologized, and all parties have moved on. Gabrielsimon, the first editor, even supported me in my last sysop bid. Other than that, I've stayed pretty clean.

As to the handling of other contentious situations, I have dealt in some depth with Zephram Stark, a POV warrior with a cabinet full of socks. I have always treated him, and all his socks, with respect. I reprimand those that make personal attacks, including wikifriends that happened to cross the line. For a current sampling, you may want to see my dealings with Merecat at the Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I somewhat agreed with him on his RfC, but am fair and tried to nudge him in the right direction. You may also want to see my handling of User:Thewolfstar.

I have tended to haunt the American politics articles a bit, so I am no stranger to heated debate. I just try and keep things light and try to remind people, while remembering myself, what our purpose is here. I hope I have answered your question. For further info, you can see my contribs. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler notice

I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) Proto||type 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser degrees

How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If they claim expertise in an area, especially when proposing controversial hypotheses, shouldn't their lack of credentials be identified? David D. (Talk) 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Especially when they claim to have a "doctorate" (unaccredited) without the merits of a undergraduate degree. Arbusto 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandal i just blocked . . .

yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers --Heah? 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rasputin

Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate project

Hi, I have noticed that you have been making lots of edits on Stargate related pages, however, your name was not on the list of participants in the stargate project. You are more active in stargate on WP than some people who are on the list. I thought you might want to join the project. Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, whether you join or not, for your work in stargate I am giving you an award.

		The Stargate Barnstar
		This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Barnstar Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate. --Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add a copy of the barnstar to my barnstar page and will sign up on the project page. JoshuaZ 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"

My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on wikipedia come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution:

better articles are our goal, not better policies [4]

None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can have it for free if you can figure out which is correct: "Better articles is our goal" or "Better articles are our goals". That'll prove your worth as an editor. -W.

Maybe I should just attribute it you as you put it in the edit summary and then claim I was only quoting when the grammar police show up. I'm pretty sure "better articles are" since in English number is decided by the subject not the predicact nominative. JoshuaZ 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, "better articles" might be a collective noun. Now I'm not sure. Groan. JoshuaZ 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably will be different in AE and BE, like "team". Guettarda 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (game)

Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not an admin (though I'm flattered that I've managed to fool you) but I think allowing the article to stand while the DRV runs is actually a better idea, since the deletion was out of process. If the DRV decides the deletion was actually the right decision, which seems unlikely, it can be deleted then.-Polotet 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help

Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on Cold Fusion. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, Jefffire 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. JoshuaZ 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm managed to impliment a lot of changes so it's not as bad as before. The article Cold fusion controversy is still in pretty bad state. Jefffire 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My friend Séamus was working in the same lab as Fleischmann in 1989, he did some of the control algorithms for the reaction. He's now professor of bio- and electro-sensors at Cranfield University. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC comment

I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to WP:3RR as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of that, I was actually planning on avoiding the article for at least 24 hours before I touch it again. JoshuaZ 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

I was hoping common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that you intended to delete it regardless of any outcome or discussion in the AfD? JoshuaZ 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hoped that the closing admin would do the right thing, but since that didn't happen, deletion was the only correct result. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So the possibility that there was disagreement over whether or not the Belgian source was sufficient was irrelevant?

Most definitely. 1-It's a Dutch language article which requires you to register. 2-The translation was problematic. 3-The supposed article doesn't cite its own sources. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... since when do newspapers EVER cite their sources? There's a picture of article anyways -- if you had taken the time to read or search the extensive discussion page, you would have seen it. The translation's fallibility is another story. What made/makes you think so? brabblebrex 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you didn't discuss this with Prodego why?

Would it have led to Prodego changing his/her decision? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha Kernow 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kernow, What point are you trying to make? JoshuaZ 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just joking. Your and Zoe's attitudes to Wikipedia are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum. It makes an amusing read. Kernow 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is what is going on. I think the issue is not about "tolerance" more unilateralism (and possibly my lack of understanding Zoe's rationale for her unilateralism). JoshuaZ 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Village pump

You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: PubMed, Cochrane collaboration, HONcode and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. ackoz 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would start a discussion on the talk page for WP:RS and make a note with a new header that on the village pump that a discussion on that topic is occuring there. JoshuaZ 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:HealthDisclaimer

Hello JoshuaZ : ) Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, FloNight ^talk 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony, hypocrisy

"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page

"Take a look at WP:SPAM, basically you need to find a meta sysop and explain to them what is going on. JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)

Just thought I'd be a dick and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the worst in existence. Have a nice day! brabblebrex 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah, yeah. That rule refers to in article space and stuff that I'm going to bother doing drafts of. In talk space I'm really layed back and even end sentences with prepositions. JoshuaZ 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats vote stacking?

Hi, you said that my proposal is close to vote stacking. What is vote stacking? Tobyk777 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking is deliberately organizing a group of Wikipedians to all vote one way on a specific matter (examples where this problem commonly occurs are Adminship requests and WP:AfD). In general such behavior is considered to be possibly disruptive, unproductive and generally frowned upon. JoshuaZ 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with vote stacking. It's like campangining, just on a smaller scale. Tobyk777 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its precisely identical to campaigning, and campaigning on the wiki is frowned upon since it minimizes actual discussion of the matter at hand and measures more who can get-out-the-vote better rather than what the actual consensus is. Wikipedia is not a democracy. JoshuaZ 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

FYI, User:JedRothwell has been blocked for 24 hours. ~MDD4696 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left JedRothwell and Jefffire messages on their talk pages asking what the dispute was about (I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the problem is). If you have any additional commentary, I'd like to hear it too. On the one hand, we can't have JedRothwell being disruptive, but on the other, I'd like to try and figure out if he has a valid point. Thanks. ~MDD4696 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is correct here. Jed has been POV-pushing on the article, the section of the paragraph he wants to add is not relevant. To be blunt, Jed insists that every section give the last word to the cold fusion advocates even if he has to find an only tangentially related statement to stick in. JoshuaZ 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malthusians re Eric Pianka

Thanks for your interest on the matter of Malthusians. I do think that Eric Pianka certainly fits like a hand to a glove with this doctorine. Essentially it boils down to population control and the idea that humans are no better than animals and should be culled accordingly. There is certainly much science to argue for this, but the idea is morrally repugnant as it advocates massive genocide using the excuse that humans are destroying the planet. This is certainly at odds with the creationists who believe that human life is special and certainly above that of the animals or vegetation of the planet. They argue that science is reductionist in that it only deals with what can be measured by repeatable experiments, so it has no validity in matters of ethics.

The history of Malthusians is long and complex and stretches far further than the man who is credited for this doctrine. You might be interested in looking at the involvement of the British Royal Society and Lindon LaRouche’s EIR is probably the best researched source of information on its history.

This link has a collection of articles from EIR featuring this

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/contents.htm#environ

e.g. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/malthsay.htm

Ok, for starters, articles on personal websites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Second of all, this has to be one of the most convoluted definitions of malthusianism I have ever heard. It isn't at all clear to me what Malthusianism has to do with creationism or a reductionist viewpoint, or one's ethical system at all. If these concerns are addressed, it might possibly make sense to call Pianka a malthusian, but no time before that. JoshuaZ 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Malthusian was used with reference to his political stance on population reduction and a disregard for human life, which is an ethical subject. It does not have anything directly to do with creationism except that the label was applied to Forrest Mims his accuser.

I was just trying to make the issue a little clearer for your benefit. The links I provided were also for your benefit in order to show you the history of the subject so you would not think I was making it up or something. The site is a reprint of EIR articles and EIR is a long establish political publication. I could simply use the reference as in the issue number and author but the link was provided to help you so you don't need to go and buy the magazine back issue to check it. I appreciate it is not possible for you to be an expert in every subject but I hope this shows you that the alteration I made has grounding in published works of credibility.

The links you provided are to articles from The American Almanac, a Larouchian newspaper(as I understand it), not a reliable source. You are getting closer to what a reasonable definition of Malthusian might be, but that's 1) not what the word means and 2) you meaning doesn't support his claim. JoshuaZ 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps you should ba an Admin

Hi, I have been coming across you alot lately, at random times. (partialy because we are both active inn stargate) You are the most active wikipedian I know of. You are constantly voting on FAc and AFD and are very active on RFA. I think that you surely have enough edits to become an admin and have as clear of an understanding of wiki policy as anyone. You seem to know everything about wikipedia, even obscure stuff, like vote stacking. Youve helped so many people become admins, why not become an admin yourself? You are more than qualified. Tobyk777 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. People have made the comment before. Right now, I'm not yet running because I feel I have enough experience (in particular, I still have very little experience with the images and templates), and I'm also peripherally involved in an arbitration case which I'd like to finish before I run so there isn't an cloud over me. I suspect I will be running soon, in about a week or two. JoshuaZ 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As a word of caution though, some might be weary of supporting an RfA for you due to your short tenure so far at Wikipedia. joturner 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I unfortunately have a slight impatient streak(which doesn't go well with waiting for adminship when one has some heavily vandalized pages in ones watchlist (like Evolution and God). Also, as far as I can tell, after e months, the number of users who object to time related concerns drops off fast (this impression is simply based on looking at the last month or so of RfAs). JoshuaZ 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Butting in, you may want to write some more articles before then because you may face inevitable questions about whether you are a career bureaucrat??ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary should be "butt in"ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I know. This coming week is actually reading week before exams, i.e. procrastination week, so I have a few articles I've been meaning to start and/or drastically improve. That's really incidental to adminship though. I'm not going to change my editing patterns just to look good for the RfAs. "career bureaucrat" also seems like an odd term in this context, and I think I get the idea, but not completely sure (I'm also shocked how many people have my user page on their watchlists). JoshuaZ 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when the time is right, I will nominate / support you for sure. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Ikiroid called dibs on nominating me, would you mind doing a joint nomination with Ikiroid when the time comes? JoshuaZ 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you do a joint nomination? Like, 2 people give their reasons for nomination, instead of one?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the RfA rules and I can't find anything that says one can't. I also don't see any reason why one shouldn't be able to. There might be an objection if one had say 10 people do a joint nomination due to it basically looking like vote stacking, but beyond that I can't think of any reasonable objections. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been done before, but a quick search doesn't turn up any obvious examples. JoshuaZ 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Co-nom's do occur on occasion; there haven't been too many recently but Lightdarkness' happened a couple of weeks ago. ~ PseudoSudo 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Embryology

Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date. I can see from you user page that you do not like to discuss pseudoscience but I can assure you that this topic isn't, so I assume that I can talk to you freely about it.

This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html[5]

The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.

Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.

What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.

So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since science is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.

thanks

Hmm, looking over the section again, it looks like you edit wasn't what it initially appeared although it was slightly problematic (and yes, I agree the current version has problems) I suggest you take it to the evidence for evolution talk page and hammer it out there with the other editors. JoshuaZ 07:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 24th

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 17	24 April 2006	About the Signpost

Confusion over office actions as veteran contributor briefly blocked	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Author threatens to sue, deemed unfit as source	Proposal to pay editors for contributions
News and Notes: Alexa rank, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

[edit] Please don't go around accusing me of a being a sockpuppet

I don't appreciate your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of RabinicLawyer simply because I side with him on the Somethingawful articles. I would appreciate if you retracted your sockpuppet comments. --TrollHistorian 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD voting record makes it clear that you are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Rabinic. This is unacceptable behavior. Heck, I agree with you about a lot of the SA-cruft. That doesn't make meatpuppeting acceptable. Considering that you, Rabinic, et al. have done almost nothing but vote for deletion on SA related articles, I suggest you stop vote stacking and make a few productive edits. JoshuaZ 01:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made productive edits but I also feel that Wikipedia can be better served by being more conservative about what is hosted on Wikipedia. I feel the value I can add to Wikipedia is related to what gets removed or cleaned up rather than what I add myself. How are the goons not meat puppets? Are they voting objectively, because I am. --TrollHistorian 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet the only AfDs you seem to vote on are those RabinicLawyer nominates. Right. (Also, calling voters you don't like "goons" is not a good thing, please see WP:NPA), Even if someone else is votestacking (of which I see no evidence), that hardly justifies votestacking in return. Furthermore, in many of the AfDs you voted right after RabinicLawyer nominated them, so you can make no claims that stacking was occuring by others. JoshuaZ 02:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the somethingawful page you will understand that "Goon" is the title that Something Awful forum users have given themselves. Sorry if I offended you by suggesting they were actually thugs. I don't think you understand this. I am not doing RabinicLawyer any favors. I simply agree with him (except on Green Lighting). --TrollHistorian 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to try to get your story straight, its a bit odd to use as a defense "We;re not meatpuppets!" and "But they're doing it also" I note actually you didn't vote to keep the green lighting hoax, you simply didn't vote there at all. Interesting. JoshuaZ 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note (after little cleanup)

Dear Joshua, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, I hope you understand that in these first minutes of my adminship I am still learning the ropes. I promise to overblock later whoever I underblocked now. Besides, my priority was to post a bunch of Thank-you notes... Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm confused. What are you refering to? JoshuaZ 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax tagger

Jeesh, I'd just finished filling out a 3RR (which is a pain). Oh well, at least he's blocked. Thanks for helping! OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused I am. I thought you were an admin, why didn't you block him yourself? JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, my thanks as well. I'm pretty new around here and wasn't sure how anti-vandalism reverts related to 3RR, but I was keeping an eye on things. Cheers! - FlyingOrca 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.140.99.7

Why did you add that new warning? My warning occured after the vandalism had stopped anyways. JoshuaZ 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You really can't block someone unless they first get something more serious than {{test}} --rogerd 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. What does that have to do with this? He had stopped vandalzing,been given a warning and then an hour later you added another warning jumping two levels in the test-tree? JoshuaZ 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it, then revert it. --rogerd 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why FF Coppola should be impaled

that word adds emphasis. I feel it is needed because too many people buy what I regard as bunk about how that movie is the truest to Bram Stoker's novel ever made. It may be closer in letter than most "dracula" movies made, but is so far from the spirit of the original I feel the differences and betrayals are need to be emphasised. We may discuss this more at length if you wish, or I may add a note on the article's talk page. --Svartalf 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: The Game

I will quite happily find one - Give me a week or so, though, I'll need to set up a meeting with the tutor!HawkerTyphoon 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which sources are missing in "Controversy"?

Which sections in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy are not sourced? Please be specific. --JedRothwell 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Among others, I marked the more egregious ones with {{fact}} JoshuaZ 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep at it. You are doing good.

Seriously, and sincerely, the sections you marked were weak. I chopped one completely, and I believe I beefed the others up. You probably do not agree I improved them, but I thank you.

However, I request that you mark the problems instead of chopping them out. Of course I have no objection whatever to adjustments, and I encourage you to scour the skeptical literature and add any important stuff that I overlooked. --JedRothwell 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meme

Delighted to see an editor of your caliber taking an interest in Meme. Please feel free to take a large hatchet to the darn thing. There is a constant string of people full to the brim of unsourced (mis) information editing that, and I am far too buried to do much about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Re: Failed adminship tallies

I suggest you start from Z up, and I go from D down? :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. JoshuaZ 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you the S R to Z ones.

(Can't believe that the "vote here" links are still present on some of these RfAs. If you spot any, you may want to remove them.) ;-) Kimchi.sg | talk 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting on my RfA

Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

--Mets501^{talk • contribs} 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tally

Hello JoshuaZ Thank you for keeping the tally up to date in my RFA. Did you notice that the voting is finished in AA arbcom case? Bet your glad to put that behind you! FloNight ^talk 04:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, which is just in time for exams, so I'll need to wait another week at least to do my own RfA. JoshuaZ 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Game deletion review

My comment was directed at the whole process. Consider how much time you've spent on this issue over the last week, then multiply it against every person involved in this issue: how many articles could have been wikified, cleaned-up, or references found & added to with all of those hours? And don't take my comment personally: I'm including both sides of this issue. And I think almost everyone involved could have spent her/his time better on something else.

"Huh" sums up my opinion nicely: it took me less than a minute to add to the discussion, & less than a second for everyone to read. And you're the first person to wonder what I meant by it. -- llywrch 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he's the first person to wonder what you meant by it and be bothered to contact you about it. Kernow 13:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

Voting is evil...it's not a vote...and we don't compromise scientific integrity and encyclopedic quality based on the webspamming that conspiracy theorists routinely do in articles related to 9/11/01. Recognize that these people are trying hard to take over the information world with their nonsense and they are not to be taken lightly. The create new accounts all the time, post anonymously and use every dirty trick to influence in article space and on discussion pages. That is why the vote over at the 7 World Trade Center article is worthless.--MONGO 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

thanks for the help, sorry if I came off as a jerk. I'm monitoring the recent changes and recently created articles right now to get some vandalism watch / deletion stuff up on my contribs.. really, thanks drumguy8800 - speak 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Unsourced Material on 9/11 conspiracy

The problem is, is that there is such a large amount of it, and the page is too long as it is. It has been discussed on the talk page, and frankly it would be better to put material back in after sourcing it--DCAnderson 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False vandalism revert

An anonymous vote on an AFD isn't vandalism, and it can't be reverted like you did to [6]. You can object to it by replying though. Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the individuals other comments in the last hour and the IP. The IP is a repeat vandal from a highschool (and has in the last few minutes claimed to be the principal and to be a teacher there) and has been giving deliberately nonsensical comments on AfDs and elswhere. The reversion was justified(since you disagreed, I won't revert again without your permission) JoshuaZ 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam to multiple users (13 of them)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I would be willing to do that. JoshuaZ 03:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is live. Bishonen | talk 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, it is I, He Who "Argues" On RFAs. :P I was just wondering, what is the WikiPolicy on spelling? I.e. is colour the right way, or color? Neighbour or Neighbor? Thanks. _-M _o P-_ 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are asking me of all people, but I would point you to WP:MOS the section "National varieties of English" and also to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). To summarize, when a page is first written in British English it stays in British English, and the reverse for American English. Consistency is a priority. There is a major exception to the rule: articles about topics which are nationality specific. For example, London would follow British conventions, whereas George W. Bush would follow American conventions. I hope that helps. JoshuaZ 07:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well, I've just seen some articles where different contributors have used different spellings; it doesn't look very consistent. And I asked you because I happened to be scanning my watchlist and an edit you made happened to be under my cursor when I remembered the question. Thanks, _-M _o P-_ 07:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Question

Hi, on your RFA you said that your work prompted me. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you have me curious. Thanks Tobyk777 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, end of that sentence got cut off somehow, it should have said "prompted Tobyk777 to give me a barnstar." Thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, JoshuaZ/Archive001, thank you so much for your vote, comments and correcting the tally in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 1st.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 18	1 May 2006	About the Signpost

Campaign manager resigns over Wikipedia edit	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Assorted honors for Jimmy Wales	News and Notes: 4 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

[edit] AA Arbitration

Hello JoshuaZ. I noticed you mentioned the AA ruling on the AiG page. I was involved in the early days of the dispute (before arbitration) and am interested in what happened. Are you allowed to give me the link to the ruling? Ashmoo 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote from Johnlee acting on behalf of the Arb Com "Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case." The decision is in more detail here. (The editor who made those edits was one of the ones mentioned in the et al. Note that the Arb Com did not conclude that any of the editors were necessarily Jonathan Sarfati). JoshuaZ 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Textbook"

I appreciate that you're trying to understand my point. I was nearly ready to give up on the article; I did not, however, truly wish to believe that all of the TalkOrigins Archive's supporters were unreasonable and bull-headed; I really think we want to use language that is as clear and unambiguous as possible. I do apologize for missing that one website does use a TalkOrigins article, however. The Jade Knight 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 vs 9 Chevrons

Hi, on Stargate device there clearly are 9 chevrons. You, me and many other users who know about stargate, and are able to look at pictures realize and know this. However, some IP keeps changing it to 7 over and over again. It's like a edit war, except its 45 vs one. Almost everyone in the project keeps reverting this IP, but he keeps changing 9 to 7. What should we do? Tobyk777 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point he isn't doing it frequently enough for it to be a concer, if he keeps up then it might be a cause to worry. But as of now, doing it once or twice a day even isn't that big a problem. Still, I'll leave a message on his talk page. JoshuaZ 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makeup

Do you often 'go rouge'? ;-) agapetos_angel 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but since I'm not an admin I haven't had many chances to do it. I intend to follow policy and not invoke WP:IAR unless there are very good reasons to and not without prior consultation with multiple other admins. In any event, I can assure you that any such behavior will be kept to a minimum. JoshuaZ 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke. 'Rouge', as you spelled it is another name for makeup that enhances cheekbones. You intended to say 'rogue' ;-) agapetos_angel 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We must be wary of creating anouther rouge admin... Jefffire 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleviating concerns

Excellent suggestion! Where would you suggest I make such a pledge? - Amgine 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Oule, Ave, and Hello. I would like to thank you for voting to keep the Aleksandra Wasowicz article (even though you provided a vote entailing a "weak keep"). Anyway, thanks for voting to keep the article. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 3, 2006 12:37 P.M. EST

[edit] remove AiG advert, keeping in link to AiG article

I didn't put that phrase in as an advert; I simply meant to portray that even within the rank and file of the young earth movement there is a self proclaimed crisis regarding young earth ideas. However, I don't object to you removing the sentence.--146.244.138.41 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki personal attacks poll

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

• Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Strom 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

Hi Joshua,

I have just answered your question on my RFA page. Hope you find it satisfactory.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, I didn't involved myself in the initial request because it looked like all the evidence I would have given was already given, I'll contribute to the evidence section if I can do something useful. JoshuaZ 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. The way I see it, there isn't really any evidence yet on the RFAr page, there's only rather sweeping statements (some of them pretty convincing, though!). Diffs, that's what the arbs want. On the other hand I don't suppose they want them in vast quantities, it's not like Sam is an unknown quantity, and there are plenty of diffs in the RfC. It seems a bit of a pity that the "Outside views" on the Request page have now been removed, as some of them were great, but I suppose it makes sense that arbitration works that way. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Discussion page cleaning

Hollow are the Ori disagrees with your discussion page no cleaning suggestion. Hato believes the discussion page should be kept free of clutter, especially free of pointless conversations. Maybe I will create a proper archive but nothing yet posted to my discussion page has been worth saving in my interpretation. How did you notice and do you honestly care? We should continue this discussion here on your talk page, I am watching it now, if you believe it is likely to be worth saving. Hollow are the Ori 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed because I kept your talk page on my watchlist after I sent you the welcome notice(I generally consider it a good idea to keep the pages of user's I've welcomed on my watchlist for a while in case they need any assistance). As for caring, I don't care much, but some other users do. It is generally easier to find a part of a conversation that one is looking for if the conversations are archived. Similarly, if a person needs to look at one's talk history in general (say, if one is considering whether to support them for adminship) it is useful to have a record of the various talk conversations to glance over. JoshuaZ 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have not been reading my discussion page or I suspect you would agree nothing has been worthy of saving. One separate problem is that each person's talk page often contains only half of the conversation which makes archiving akward at best. One other user account in a recent pointless discussion integrated my responses into theirs on their discussion page after I cleaned mine, which I am 100% ok with and which is the best way to do it, I simply didn't deem that discussion worthy of saving myself, especially their half. I am actually strongly in favor of saving what is worthy of being saved. Hollow are the Ori 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was precisely your conversation with KimvdLinde that prompted me to make the comment. Disputes are, in fact, the most important conversations to keep on one's page (for the above discussed reasons). And yes, the matter of conversations splitting up is a serious one which is why some people (like me) attempt to keep a conversation all in one location (see the note at the top of my talk page). In general, one doesn't always know what is worthy of being saved until later and don't know what other users will be interested in seeing. JoshuaZ 01:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So you believe my discussion with KimvdLinde, especially their half, was worth saving? I disagree. Since KimvdLinde deemed it worthy of saving it was saved which is as it should be, hato on the other hand does not desire to get into the cruft management business, especially when its other people's cruft. Hollow are the Ori 02:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it takes less effort (or "cruft management") as you put it) to Archive periodically than to wipe after almost every conversation. Also, the basic point that users might be interested in knowing what you've said still holds. If a user goes to read your page, it will be inconvenient for them to locate the conversation with Kim or to even know it took place. JoshuaZ 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My criteria actually isn't desiring less effort so much, rather it is primarily not wanting to encourage the increase or acceptance of cruft. I don't plan to wipe every conversation, only what I deem to be cruft or what is otherwise not archive worthy. A simple Talk namespace search will reveal all conversations I've taken part in that someone has deemed important enough to archive, not to mention there is always history, and I suspect fancy automatic archiving is somewhere around the corner. Hollow are the Ori 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, you seem to have a very general defintion of cruft. The talk pages are specifically for discussing things, pretty much anything sort of absolute vandalism might be reasonable to talk about. (Also, as a matter of notation, "cruft" is generally used only to refer to certain types of material in mainspace, not article space, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it). JoshuaZ 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, basically anything with a hint of duplicitousness or tangentification or obfuscation or dichotomization or befuddling or presumption inducing or game playing or non-organic I meant when I used the word cruft. Hopefully it will significantly decrease. Hollow are the Ori 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:AGF and note that like in any collaborative endeavor there will be people who disagree. Just because someone disagrees does not make what they have to say "cruft" JoshuaZ 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please comprehend Hollow are the Ori's rule to deny sanctuary to cruft (as defined above). I am not arguing it is objectively cruft, I just have a low tolerance for it and a desire to keep hato's talk page pristine. When I invented the anti-cruft rule I apparently underestimated how soon and how much cruft would appear. I do very much enjoy discussion that is worthy of being saved. Hollow are the Ori 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of "That Crazy Guy" to "Chick Publications tracts"

I don't think that tract is one of his more notable tracts. It has, not, for example, been parodied multiple times nor is it one of his more well sold ones. JoshuaZ 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your opinion. It is however, one of the most notable tracts. it has a huge reputation, and is very frequently discussed by jack chick scholars. --Ghetteaux 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the claim or an example of it being discussed? I'm also slightly curious as to your use of the term "jack chick scholars" since I wasn't aware such a group existed. JoshuaZ 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

hey Josh, back in the old days i lived near the jack chick headquarters. I frequented the store, and got a feel for what was prominent in their modest salesroom. i also collect the tracks, and books written about the tracks. one authoritative volume discusses this tract extensively. a number of libraries have accessioned these little gems for future studies of millenialism.

a hypothesis: you cite that that crazy guy hasn't been parioded multiple times. I might respond that internet parody is generally the work of a certain type of person. that type of person might target "dark dungeons" for parody, as it speaks to a hobby (RPGs) enjoyed by the satirist.

however, is sex a common hobby of those that spend time making internet parodies? maybe not. therefore, less parody of the sex tract. --Ghetteaux 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I left a comment on the RFA the_ed17^{(talk)Use these!} 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NOW it better be there. I don't know, I thought i left a comment there, maybe I forgot to hit save or something. i dunno.  :) the_ed17^{(talk)Use these!} 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hello JoshuaZ/Archive001, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello, JoshuaZ/Archive001, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyles

I noticed your reverting at the Hammond article. Please see another edit this user made on the Jack Hyles.[7] Ths user reverted additional sources, grammar correctons, and a book mention of Glover without providing any reason for specific changes on the talk. Arbusto 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] formatting

JoshuaZ, how do I change my vote w/o messing up the numbers??? Thanks, User_talk:Dlohcierekim 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply on user's talk page. ~ PseudoSudo 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2

Copied from User_talk:Mackensen:

How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. Raphael1 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I count one by Stifle, two by Cyde, and 1 by Aecis. Aecis appears to have instituted the last block simultaneously with Cyde, so that's arguably only 3 admins on 3 occasions, but I don't know how you are claiming you only got blocked twice for 3rr. JoshuaZ 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

... because three changes in five days can hardly be called a 3RR violation: [8][9][10]

[edit] ARV

Just a note: regarding question four of [11], User:Lightdarkness/ARV is a javascript tool used to automatically report vandals to AIV; the fact that it marks such edits as minor is not user-controlled. ~ PseudoSudo 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, doh, I knew that. I didn't notice it was an ARV-assisted report. Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the question. JoshuaZ 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you, good luck with your RfA. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)