User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Mascara Story
Hi Joshua, information relative to my most recent edits is readily available via Myspace which is, unfortunately, deemed as an unsuitable link source as per wiki conventions. It is clear that Daveit Ferris controls the Mascara Story, Rescue the astronauts and Telephone Bruises MySpace pages - he openly acknowledges this fact and proactively uses all three to promote his solo material.
Additionally the original bebo Telephone Bruises site clearly evidences the fact that the "band" have broken up.
He himself has been banned from posting on the official Bebo site as can be evidenced at his own blog.
I'm not in the habit of posting incorrect information and I hope, given the information as provided, that you will acknowledge that my intentions are bonafide and in line with Wiki conventions.
Sincerely
The undisputed truth (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joshua,
Further to your request for substantiation, and affording due consideration to the fact that the Myspace links are "blacklisted", I can submit the following:
Mascara story Myspace page, regularly updated by Davit Ferris to promote his solo material: (link "blacklisted")
Rescue the Astronauts Myspace page, regularly updated by Davit Ferris to promote his solo material: (link "blacklisted")
Telephone Bruises Myspace page, regularly updated by Davit Ferris to promote his solo material: (link "blacklisted")
Telephone Bruises Bebo page confirming their breakup: (link "blacklisted")
Confirmation from Daveit Ferris that he has himself been banned from posting on the official Bebo page for Telephone Bruises post break up: (link "blacklisted")
Quite how you expect me to provide substantiated links whilst "blacklisting" same is beyond me - however readers will, I'm sure, through their own endeavours be able to access and verify same.
Regards
The undisputed truth (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review of "Gabriel Murphy"
Hello- you had comented on the "Gabriel Murphy" article up for deletion review. Would you mind casting a vote based on the current version of the article? I have now made the edits per the cleanup feedback by one of the users. The article is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy. I am not sure about the "excessive sourcing" claim as I thought the more sources (so long as they are reliable and independent), the better. I think/hope you will find this article is propery sourced with a majority of the sources about the individual (Gabriel Murphy). If so, I would appreciate your vote to Overturn the decision to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your welcome message. I'm still getting used to how to use Wikipedia, it's kind of confusing so I hope I'm doing this right! Edit: apparantly not o__o sorry, I don't know how to make like, not a new-section thing XD Love stephie (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Your 9/11 Bias
Your comments about the 9/11 Truth movement being a small and insignificant one are far from truth. If that were the case, then how does Loose Change garner more views in a day then your entire presence on wikipedia? A number of scientists are involved in the movement, including myself, and I take offense at your vitriol and your dismissal of any scientist involved in the movement. Some of us are not out to bash Bush or spread stories about UFOs, we are here to ask the tough questions that you seem to ignore.
Why did the US and UK have over 40K troops in standby on the day before 9/11 outside of Afghanistan? Why do the characteristics of the collapse of the 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11 match those of a controlled demolition? Why are over 30% of the people of the US currently convinced that the US government played a key role in 9/11, and over 80% certain that the government is not telling the truth?
I am not looking to further a political agenda. Politics is anathema to me. All I want is a decent investigation into how my friends and family died on that day. It's not too much to ask, and if you were not so steeped in your personal agenda (or as I suspect, being paid to discredit the movement) you might actually look into the issue rather than poo-pooing everyone with a more informed perspective than yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Film producer
At Don Murphy, can you review my revision and see what can ultimately be incorporated into the article? RTFA (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. Prodego talk 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied again. You might want to consider archiving this page, it is a bit long. Prodego talk 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up to your 3RR complaint
Hi Joshua. Do you have a recommendation of what to do next in this 3RR case? The people you cited in the original complaint have stopped, but now there are some different bad editors. If any regular editors are working on this article, they can probably keep up with the level of inappropriate editing that remains there now. Unless you have another suggestion. I had suggested semi-protection but B is not sure it's needed.
By the way, hello from the NYC WP meeting; I enjoyed meeting you there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
I've seen you all over the place lately (even when I looked up Paul Weyrich just now and saw your comment on the talk page from 2006), so I just wanted to say hi and tell you to keep up the good work. :) --Alexc3 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictures
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC is calling for individuals to add their names to the picture captions. You may if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 11 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doc Paskowitz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
- DaughterofSun (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your participation requested
(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)
Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:
Thanks for the heads-up! I seem to be forgetting to sign recently... +Hexagon1 (t) 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Re : Conditional support of BLP AfD change
I didn't like the wording of the proposal on WT:BLP per se. I support, however the wording put forth by Doc on his essay to be the actual proposal. The former is too grey and misleading to achieve its intended purpose without causing collateral damage, while the latter is a lot better. Based on how deletion debates have gone in the past, I foresee several potential problems with the former wording without any additional qualifiers. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: AN/I Thread (Proposed topic ban)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:JoshuaZ_on_Daniel_Brandt Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really want to comment either way in the thread there, but I might suggest (as did another) that you decide on your own to remove yourself from this particular topic for the future. Avruch T 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Gary Parker
Hey JoshuaZ,
Any chance you know if Gary Parker of ICR/AIG ever had a WP article? If not, I propose to start one. Finding RS in this part of the world might be tricky. My interest has recently been piqued because of an email a friend forwarded to me from a guy who provided a hurrah-preview of Ben Stein's "EXPELLED". Turns out, that same friend has a video from Gary Parker. --Otheus (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
heads up.
[1] NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sock evidence
I'd appreciate a copy (I presume I'm in good standing?). I hope it goes without saying that I'd respect any confidentiality conditions you cared to place on the e-mail. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people
I notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Western computers deletion
Is there any way to get the previous article back so I can complete any changes necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanner0jjm (talk • contribs) 09:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Lady Aleena's RfA
|
JoshuaZ...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
Cheri Yecke article
An unsigned editor just deleted references to PZ Myers "Pharyngula" blog and opened a new section on the talk page to claim it didn't meet Wikipedia standards. I thought that had been hashed out long ago. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to restore/recreate if you disagree, but there were no assertions of notability, so it fit WP:CSD#A7, IMHO. I'm leaving for the day, so I'm out of the discussion for now. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll drop it down to semi; it was only full because it seemed that registered editors were edit-warring as well. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Cate Edwards AfD
Re this edit, the user is just trying to make a point. Frank | talk 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
send put?
Hi Joshua,
I couldn't parse the 2nd sentence on this page. Should part of it be in quotes?
I left you a message on my talk page.
Best regards,
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Warning
Please do not add material to articles that there is consensus to exclude, especially possibly BLP-infringing content as you have done at Bradnt. Please note you are restricted to WP:3RR on any and all accounts you may be using, and removals under BLP are exempt from WP:3RR. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Brandt
The Community made it clear that you needed to stay away from issues related to Brandt, yet you once again are involved with a contentious discussion about Brandt. I urge you to stop now. You participation is not helping the Community reach consensus on the topic. ArbCom is discussing a formal topic ban for you related to Brandt. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Saw this in a random check of my watchlist, and if it isn't out of line for me to interject, would you consider a refactor? I realize the circumstances must be deeply frustrating, yet this doesn't look like your best moment. With respect, DurovaCharge! 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Better to do the right thing than help reach the wrong consensus. John Nevard (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
May I have permission to remove this user's vote on Encyclopedia Dramatica. He's obviously just an ED troll who isn't helping his cause by voting on the DRV when he's made no other edits.--Urban Rose 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Joshua.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your both your early and strong support. -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD
Hi. You commented on a previous AfD debate on the article Hattrick. There is a new AfD here. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Very impressed...
I'm very impressed by your balanced and polite commentary on the Expelled talk page. I think it is important that we at least admit that when there is one sentence about Charlton Heston and entire paragraphs about how this film misrepresents people, then readers are justified to complain about bias. Of course this doesn't mean we have to change the article, but your politeness is extremely helpful in pointing out to people that we are doing our best to avoid being biased, and inconsistencies across articles are not deliberate.
I think we can be open to change and criticism on the talk page, and show that we are considering many options to change the article, without this implying that article will actually have to be changed. Just to make clear, I'm very happy with your style of commenting, I didn't mean this as criticism. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake
Sorry for misidentifying you as an Admin. I'll go make a correction in my comment. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio
If i'm not blocked in the next day, I'll try and write a summary. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you a Wiki Admin?
I'm confused, Johnb316 said you were a Wiki Administrator, (in the discussion page on Jack Graham (Pastor) but I see from a comment above, that someone was apologizing for calling you one. Are you a Wiki Admin? And if so/not, how would I know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- He's one of the common people now. :0 OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Darwin quote mines
With people like Richard Weikart and Ben Stein quote mining Charles Darwin, do you think wikipedia could make an article devoted to dispelling their falsehoods. Paper45tee (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Virgin killer vote
Just wanted to let you know, that IfD closed on May 9th, you're a bit late. :) Tarc (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, in this RfC on an alternate account of User:I'clast, I came across I'clast posting a link to a section of another editor's talkpage in what appeared to be an attempt to out their real-life identity and harass them. Could you check if I am interpreting this correctly? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there, have you had time to look into this? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Dan Kaminsky
|
|
On 24 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dan Kaminsky, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Erdos-Bacon
"What the anon is adding is not "nonsense" and claiming that it is is biting. If you have a serious objection to the addition I suggest you describe it beyond calling the statement nonsense. JoshuaZ 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)"
- I will accept your suggestion as done in good faith. But I think the statement "the person would have to be both Kevin Bacon and Paul Erdős" is utter nonsense and respectfully disagree with you. If you have a different opinion, please explain to me why a statement referring to Bacon and Erdos being the same person should be included as encyclopedic. Note also that the same editor added the edit summary "rv fascism", but let's not call that a personal attack because we don't want to bite the newcomer. After all, removing nonsense (oops, sorry, I mean "possible nonsense") and bending over backwards to accept anons who add it along with calling long-standing editors fascists is much more important than writing a quality encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- "I left a note already on the anon's talk page about not using language like "facism"
- I'm sure the anon read that seriously and will strive to build a first-rate encyclopedia. Thank you for reminding me of why Wikipedia is broken. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't warn the same anon vandal (who made this edit) about personal attacks again. I'm sure he simply didn't understand your first warning and sincerely believes that he is ridding the world of the evils of fascism. Warning him again would be biting an anon newcomer and undoubtedly discourage his future edits and deprive us of his indispensible additions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure the anon read that seriously and will strive to build a first-rate encyclopedia. Thank you for reminding me of why Wikipedia is broken. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- "I left a note already on the anon's talk page about not using language like "facism"
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Bobby Jindal supports ID
I have tried to add some information about Gov Bobby Jindal's support of ID and the current legislation. However, one user has removed any mention of it and has even removed what ID is leaving no context. Paper45tee (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- So far the consensus on the discussion page is that my edit was proper. I, of course, welcome the opinion of other wikipedia members as well. DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Revert at Zionism article
Hello Joshua,
you seem to have reverted my edit together with another user's edit citing "POV, MOS and other issues". i would be happy if you'd be more specific regarding what you found POV/MOS/Other in my edit and discuss it in the talk page. If you have no objection, i intend on restoring the edit with newly found sources (for amazigh and kurdish support for zionism). 80.179.69.194 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! A User:Yehudi Neeman has been repeatedly converting the Temple Institute article into an essay arguing the Institute's case. Since I've been involved in editing the article, I believe it might be a good idea for a more neutral editor to take a look. I have no evidence of a direct COI, but perhaps someone else might be in a better position to determine this. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists on the outside world... yay!
Just dropping by to say hi on your userpage since we seem to be editing shoulder to shoulder in the 'in popular culture' discussions. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Chess Boxing
The lead looks fine now. Just don't use seasonal terms like "spring of 2003" since we don't want to be northern hemisphere centric. If an Aussie read that they'd probably be thinking much later in the year. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Inquiry about sourcing on Chess boxing
Template:Cite episode can be used to clean it up if the program exists. I'm not too sure on how much information is required for an episode before it's considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright; please keep the discussion at Talk:Chess boxing/GA1 so everything is in one place :) Gary King (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleting knowledge
Thanks for your support on the AfD review page Joshua; I have to tell you though, it was me who made pages for all those cases! When someone bent on deleting the page finds out they would probably point to this fact as a smarmy way of supporting their argument. To explain, the way I got interested in Paul Diamond originally was that I was writing this page on employment discrimination law in the United Kingdom. As I was looking at and writing up the major cases, I realised there was this guy who seemed to pop up again and again in the Christian-related cases. And when I counted them up, lo and behold Mr Diamond was representing them all! Not most, but every religious discrimination case. And, he keeps on losing. And then I noticed, wait, all this has been national news; so I put it all on the Paul Diamond page, and linked in all the news articles. Then the guy complains because it's clearly bad for his practice that potential clients (I suspect he headhunts them and encourages them to litigate, but of course doesn't tell them that they've a 5% chance of success!) could see online how poorly he's performing. Unfortunately for him, the law does not allow you to get special privileges for being religious - the law only says you can't sack someone (or refuse to hire, etc) because you hate Christians, Muslims etc: only direct discrimination is covered it seems under the HRA 1998, not indirect discrimination. I think it's just a shame that his shrill cries of foul play scare these administrators, most of whom are American, or just know nothing about law, or the UK, or the ECHR. Anyway, as I say, thanks for the support. Wikidea 13:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.
All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
Re: Dragon695
Well, it was you and FM vs. at least 10 people, so I would say that's a pretty clear consensus that the block was not warranted. That being said, it's better if we keep all discussion in one spot, whether it be ANI or ARBCOM. If you can prove no consensus I may unarchive, but I am definitely not seeing it after a re-read. Wizardman 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I would not be so certain it is 2 vs. 10 people. What is obvious is that a certain group has proudly attacked, harassed and intimidated anyone who weighs in on such topics. I am one of them. After all, has there not been something like 7 or so administrative actions (RfArs, RfCs, Arbcomm proceedings, etc, not including Wikiquette Alerts, AN and AN/I and other noticeboard threads) filed in the last 6 weeks? So do not be too smug about the apparent one-sidedness.-Filll (talk | wpc) 16:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'll unarchive it for now, but remember that we're discussing the block and the diffs presented. I better not see any mudslinging (that's a general warning, not one to you personally). Wizardman 16:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Stargate
|
Hello, JoshuaZ/Archive 10! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list. |
Was it you who referred to this?
Please do me a favor: Someone, I think it might have been you, mentioned a philosophical conundrum about a "heap" in which grains of sand are removed from it individually. I read it, found it incredibly interesting (and possibly very useful in a discussion). Could you please give me the wikilink to that, if it was you or you know the reference off the top of your head? I'd appreciate it. Noroton (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I was looking for. No, you hadn't mentioned it to me; I'd just seen it in some discussion somewhere this past week. Thanks a lot! Noroton (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, this is funny: It was User:John Z, who mentioned it here. Now why would I have thought it was you ... ? Noroton (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ian Blair
Yeah, he's controversial. Doesn't warrant a controversy section; his most prolific controversy (Jean Charles) is discussed as part of his career. Also, did the following "provoke debate especially marked by differing viewpoints"?:
- "Most muggers are black"
- Brian Haw
- Comments about the safety in London
- Comments about WW2
- The muslim police officer incident
- Balcombe Street Seige account
- Impact Plus investigation
I don't see that in the article. Sceptre (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the merits of a "controversy" section, but I do believe the sheer size of the section violates WP:UNDUE. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- He's a highly controversial figure. There's no UNDUE issue since the weight isn't undue.. As to Sceptre's concern, its more valid and I'll take a closer look. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- 60% of the article deals with his controversies. Even if the subject is highly controversial, I don't think we're giving proper weight to the other aspects of Blair's career. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The heading seems awkward to me, so I'll think about that, but these are serious issues that relate to his career and shouldn't be airbrushed because of an arbitrary idea that some other aspect needs expanding. Will sleep on it for now. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- He's a highly controversial figure. There's no UNDUE issue since the weight isn't undue.. As to Sceptre's concern, its more valid and I'll take a closer look. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ass in ass
I wondered the same myself, but the content was a pastiche of some of our other sex articles, and with "Ass in ass" and "Cologne Glomb" receiving no (relevant) Google hits whatsoever, if it wasn't vandalism, it was indistinguishable from it. Nevertheless, I've left a note on the user's page offering to lift his block if he explains that this wasn't vandalism. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- By the way - one of the most -err, "unfortunate"- edit summaries ever [2]? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Planet Poker page
Hi Joshua:
My main interest in publishing the article about Planet Poker was definitely not to promote Planet Poker or as advertising. As an early spectator to the birth of online poker I think it is valuable to have this history available. I'm also (apparently) not that great at writing encyclopedic articles :-) If you have any suggestions for improving the article to make it more Wikipedia-like I am all ears. And thanks for your help...
Burkr (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have another article on the early history of online poker which I haven't got ready to go yet. Would it be better to withdraw the article on Planet Poker, put in the history article and (after some re-writing) resubmit it?
Burkr (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the current article on Planet Poker could be more properly titled "the early history of online poker" with some re-working. I could then construct a page similar to the Paradise Poker for Planet Poker which would be reference from the history article (along with many of the other early cardrooms... What do you think?
Burkr (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added some references to the article. Hopefully they'll help...
Burkr (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't usually like doing that, in case IPs want to say something on ANI, but I think someone has done it, and that is ok with me in this case. Prodego talk 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
CC 2.5
CC licensing, not GFDL, requires the original creator to be cited. It also requires all derivatives to cite the original creator. This requires a series of timings to prove when it was originally created (i.e. the photo), and what alterations happened to it by who (if its still by the creator, they need to say when uploaded, when cropped, etc). Some of this can be ignored if you have the original date. However, none of that was there, and the fact that there is another version without the face cropped, this is a derivative work and not the original. Thus, if they are licensing it under CC 2.5, they have to say where they got this derivative (now the "licensed work") from. Otherwise, it could be licensing something that was previous GFDL/unlicensed, which violates the CC rules. All thats need is an original date of creation and dates when cropped or mentioned of cropping. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- How do you legally know it was the image that they made? They said that the image there was the one they took. It obviously isn't because they edited it. They never acknowledged the editing or the difference version. Thus, it does not fall under CC 2.5 compliance. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- "description of the image: pearl necklace, made in a private session. We are a couple like many others, not "pro", so get this photo "as is"." The photo was not. It was cropped from one that may have been made in "a private session". Made when? That is unknown. That is also necessary for CC/Copyright laws, as licensing expires from creation, not from uploading. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- This seems a bit tendentious, really. The primary question as far as copyright should be whether they're the authors (or, more precisely, whether they had the authority to license the content). If they are the author, they can't exactly infringe their own copyright... – Luna Santin (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but thats not how CC 2.5 works. They claimed that the work there is licensed under CC 2.5. It is a derivative. Therefore, either the original was licensed, under CC 2.5 and this needs to be stated as a derivative work, or they need to say that this is one is licensed and give the date of the alteration to the original. Furthermore, all need dates of the original picture being taken. Otherwise, this cannot be licensed as CC 2.5. Maybe GFDL, but not CC 2.5. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming they're the original author, they could just as soon call the cropped version an original work without any issue, and at any rate are perfectly allowed to make derivative works of their own work under any terms of their choosing. The date of creation does not obviously feature in the full text of cc-by-2.5, and the image is dual-licensed GFDL 1.2, regardless. Again, you're missing the bigger question. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really know if thats true in this case, seeing as how the one was previously released. "means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." It doesn't say "anything but the original creator doing this". Plus, recent rulings suggest that the derivatives must be named. Plus, this would apply: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties." And of course "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author")."
- Assuming they're the original author, they could just as soon call the cropped version an original work without any issue, and at any rate are perfectly allowed to make derivative works of their own work under any terms of their choosing. The date of creation does not obviously feature in the full text of cc-by-2.5, and the image is dual-licensed GFDL 1.2, regardless. Again, you're missing the bigger question. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but thats not how CC 2.5 works. They claimed that the work there is licensed under CC 2.5. It is a derivative. Therefore, either the original was licensed, under CC 2.5 and this needs to be stated as a derivative work, or they need to say that this is one is licensed and give the date of the alteration to the original. Furthermore, all need dates of the original picture being taken. Otherwise, this cannot be licensed as CC 2.5. Maybe GFDL, but not CC 2.5. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- This seems a bit tendentious, really. The primary question as far as copyright should be whether they're the authors (or, more precisely, whether they had the authority to license the content). If they are the author, they can't exactly infringe their own copyright... – Luna Santin (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the last part would have to mention the original work with all derivatives. It doesn't specify that the original author is exempt, especially when they are hosting it on a GFDL site for use in the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um. If they're the original author, they can do whatever they want because they own the copyright. Copyright owners are entitled to create or authorize derivatives under any terms they please, especially if they're ones doing the deriving. One cannot infringe one's own copyrights. If they then legitimately license their derivative under cc-by-2.5 as well (which it appears they did), I don't see a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is legally unsound when there are two items and one is a clear derivative. Copyright expires off the original and not the secondary item. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um. If they're the original author, they can do whatever they want because they own the copyright. Copyright owners are entitled to create or authorize derivatives under any terms they please, especially if they're ones doing the deriving. One cannot infringe one's own copyrights. If they then legitimately license their derivative under cc-by-2.5 as well (which it appears they did), I don't see a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the last part would have to mention the original work with all derivatives. It doesn't specify that the original author is exempt, especially when they are hosting it on a GFDL site for use in the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) Introductory Copyright 101 - if I own the original, I can do whatever the heck I want and re-release it (or parts of it) accordingly. It's a big part of journalism school. BMW(drive) 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but they didn't even say they "rereleased" it, and it is under the same copyright status as the original, so its not a rerelease. Its a derivative work without mention of the original. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, this is rather clear: "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses." This states that WikiCommons would have to be in full compliance. That means "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work". This can't be gotten around. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I only have to credit identifying the use of the work in the derivative if I don't own the original work. If I take a photo that YOU personally took, crop it, add colour, make distortions then I have to have YOUR permission as owner and thus have to identify the use of the work in MY derivative.BMW(drive) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- "if I don't own the original work." Wikicommons doesn't own the original source. Therefore, its not in compliance. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ottava, I strongly suspect you aren't a lawyer since your interpretation of that line is irrelevant. That line could be interpreted to mean that the original image was no longer CC 2.5 but would say nothing about the new one. And even that would be a highly strained reading. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- If that was true, it wouldn't have derivatives that you provide. Copyright deals with the primary source. There is no primary source here. All derivatives require mention of the primary source. Come on. This is basic copyright law. This is a no issue, and this should have been common sense. And this is quite wrong: "mean that the original image was no longer CC 2.5 but would say nothing about the new one." No, it would mean that this image is improperly licensed by not stating clearly that it is a derivative work of another image that holds a copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I only have to credit identifying the use of the work in the derivative if I don't own the original work. If I take a photo that YOU personally took, crop it, add colour, make distortions then I have to have YOUR permission as owner and thus have to identify the use of the work in MY derivative.BMW(drive) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, this is rather clear: "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses." This states that WikiCommons would have to be in full compliance. That means "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work". This can't be gotten around. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) Arrgh. Logic: I own A. B is derived from A. Therefore, my claims of B come from my originally owning A.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)
- Ottava, basic copyright law says that the creator relicense and multilicense pretty close to however they want(barring it being something like a work-for-hire or some other special situation). That point seems to be one you are missing. Now, the last time I took a class that dealt with copyright laws it was two years ago but this is a point that was hammered home and frankly would be one that anyone would tell you: the original creator is free relicense. I suggest that instead of copyright paranoia you try to actually learn a bit about the subject. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are wrong - Common sense - even "free use" images need to have their original work cited and all derivatives acknowledged by each creator of them. Since Wiki Commons is the host, they cannot host it without such information. This is the fundamental of copyright law. You can't get around it no matter how hard you try. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, you have proven that you do not understand the law, nor the issues involved. You have personally attacked me above, and continue to do so. That suggests that you don't have an argument. This is the last comment from me to you, because you have just proven your inability to actually discuss the matter properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gah. OR, the case in question dealing with the Artistic License wasn't over that at all. The issue there was whether stuff licensed under a copyleft license actually could use copyright laws to collect damages or just contract law. That isn't the issue here at at all. In the case in question, it wasn't the original creator relicensing. The situations have nothing to do with each other. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Joshua. You are being rude and hostile right now. This makes it impossible for you to listen. Wiki Commons is not the original owner. Wiki Commons is hosting an image. Wiki Commons needs to cite that the image is a derivative. There were two images hosted. One was removed. This is a clear derivative made AFTER that other image. There is no "relicensing". This is a derivative which makes it fall under the original licensing. It cannot get any more clear than that, and the facts are so obvious that your continue attacks are extremely tenditious. You don't seem to get how Wiki Commons needs to track originals and derivatives. This is basic copyright law. This is basic protocol. Always cite sources. Your arguments mark a trend that is very problematic. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, it is obvious that this is the same case if you read: "This meant anyone using that free code had to attribute the author, highlight the original source of the files and explain how the code had been modified." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gah. OR, the case in question dealing with the Artistic License wasn't over that at all. The issue there was whether stuff licensed under a copyleft license actually could use copyright laws to collect damages or just contract law. That isn't the issue here at at all. In the case in question, it wasn't the original creator relicensing. The situations have nothing to do with each other. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ottava, basic copyright law says that the creator relicense and multilicense pretty close to however they want(barring it being something like a work-for-hire or some other special situation). That point seems to be one you are missing. Now, the last time I took a class that dealt with copyright laws it was two years ago but this is a point that was hammered home and frankly would be one that anyone would tell you: the original creator is free relicense. I suggest that instead of copyright paranoia you try to actually learn a bit about the subject. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent again) Ottava, please. You don't have to re-credit myself when you own the original from which I made a derivative. Please think logically - not an insult, just that this point is far too clear. I have only gotten involved in this arguement because I KNOW the law as a journalist. Unfortunately you are acting very stubborn about a situation when others actually understand the law better. Please ... refrain, and act civil. BMW(drive) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ottava, A releases a picture under CC 2.5. A then makes a derivative of that and releases that under CC 2.5. There's no need to credit the original image. Why? Because the original can be used by A however A pleases. Heck, A could take the original and release it under a generally uncompatible license. They could have started with GFDL and then made the second image under the non commercial 2.5 variant and that would be ok too even thought it contradicted the GFDL (we wouldn't be able to use it but that's a separate issue). The fundamental point you seem to be missing is that the original individual has great leeway about how they license it and they are free to relicense any of their own works pretty close to however they please. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
New policy proposal and draft help
Wikipedia:Scientific standards
I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.
Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.
See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.
ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Lying
This [3] statement that Kohs "photoshopped a picture to make Durova look like she is wearing underwear" is a lie. Besides the ethical violation here, you're violating WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- When we talk about real, live people, we have to be careful to tell the truth. What you said was a gross exaggeration about a real person did. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seems more to have been acase of misremembering to me. And Cla, talking about "ethics"? Uh ... •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, a gemorrah in tractate Rosh Hoshana gives Darius I of Persia (Daryavesh) as an exception to the rule that documents in the reigns of non-Jewish kings are dated in Tishrei, documents in his reign are dated from Nissan as for Jewish Kings. The gemorrah says that the reason is that Darius was a "kosher king", although it says he subsequently "soured". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality Tag
Hello,
I have added a tag to the Barack Obama article requesting that it be checked for neutrality. I thought you might be interesting in coming in as a neutral editor and checking the article out. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Reminder
This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Creationist museums/Gastrich
Since you were invovled in Gastrich's banning and have interest in the creationist museums, what do you think about this? I am opposed to its addition, but figured since you were involved in the banning you can give some ideas. We66er (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Helpout for pork
Hey -- Shirahadasha suggested I contact you. I had trouble working out the quotation marks for the first biblical verses -- do you know how to format them properly? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I want to put quotation marks before and after the hebrew text and right align the last line (which is currently left aligned, as though we begin reading while floating in the air of the last line. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
RfA
I agree with you; it was stupid to even talk about something like that. I tried to address MBisanz' concerns on his talk page; you might be interested in reading that. Everyking (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't detect the humor, but thanks for telling me. I've heard so many comments along the same lines that weren't intended as humor that it isn't my default assumption. Everyking (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you moved to neutral. That post on WR represents my viewpoint on what happened to me in the past. I don't pretend to accept that the ruling was a good one; as I mentioned in one of my RfA answers, I acknowledge that my approach was often poor in mid-2005, but I feel an ArbCom case was unjustified. You must realize in particular that I was sanctioned for things that occurred months prior to the case and that I had already modified my conduct to take into account the views of others; in fact, I had mostly ceased posting to the AN pages voluntarily for that reason. I hope you will base your vote on how I've conducted myself and not based on my viewpoint about something that occurred three years ago. Everyking (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
minor edits and user pages
(x-posted from my talk) Apologies for both. In the case of the former, I always looked (and still look) at clearly uncontroversial removals (in this case, removing complete OR that implied that information about STDs led to adolescent turmoil and a negation of one of the most landmark studies in psychology) as minor edits, only a small step above removing outright vandalism in terms of "majorness". In the case of the latter - while I understand how others can see it as "ugly", tastes vary. I'm uncomfortable with the "politely worded demand" to create a user page. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia and to offer my views towards furthering a better "working environment", not to make friends or talk about myself. I actually prefer the red-link somewhat, as it stands out on wikilink-filled talk pages, without calling unnecessary attention to itself like many sigs do. Thanks for your requests Badger Drink (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
Proofs in math articles
Hello,
I've started adding rough drafts of proofs for some of the theorems referenced in math articles (see for instance Connected_space/Proofs. Is doing so kosher, or will it get erased as original research/unverifiable? (I would argue that a correct proof stands alone as self-verifying, but I'm far from being acquainted with the finer points of Wikilawyering.) I can, of course, find some textbooks containing the proofs and cite them, if necessary. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think [4] settled the question. On an unrelated note, would you accept if I filed an RfA to get you back your admin tools? TotientDragooned (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually in Traditional Scottish language photosynthesis is used to describe all biology which is not a part of humans, even in animals.
Odd I know but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Densomate (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll place it in Photosynthesis! Seeing as the 8 million Scots who use a different tongue than you are discriminated just because of there race! If it were an islamic or african term would it still not be 'so-improtant'? This is a user-oriented encyclopedia - if some of its users find something of importance then it has the right to be included - so don't go deleting things because you think of it differently. I have a right mind to contact someone else for your ignorance and blatent racism (maybe not in the traditional term but it is racism all the same)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Densomate (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the OED is racist, too...
- [< PHOTO- comb. form + SYNTHESIS n. With sense 1 compare German Photosynthese (1897 or earlier: see note; now usu. Fotosynthese).
- The word was suggested in 1893 as an alternative to C. R. Barnes's term PHOTOSYNTAX n. (see note s.v.) and found favour with some American botanists:
- 1894 D. T. MACDOUGAL tr. W. Oels Exper. Plant Physiol. Pref. p. iv, In the discussion of the paper Professor Conway MacMillan suggested "Photo-synthesis," etymologically considered as a more appropriate and accurate term.Its adoption was further encouraged by the use of German Photosynthese in W. Pfeffer's Pflanzenphysiologie (1897), and it rapidly became predominant.]
- [< PHOTO- comb. form + SYNTHESIS n. With sense 1 compare German Photosynthese (1897 or earlier: see note; now usu. Fotosynthese).
- 1. The process (or series of processes) by which the energy of light absorbed by chlorophyll is utilized by plants for the synthesis of complex organic compounds from carbon dioxide, with the accompanying oxidation of water to form oxygen. Also: any of various similar processes by which the energy of light is converted to chemical energy for biosynthesis in bacteria, often involving alternative sources of carbon and not resulting in the generation of oxygen.
- 1893 C. R. BARNES in Bot. Gaz. 18 410, I have carefully considered the etymology and adaptation..of the word proposed [sc. ‘photosyntax’], and consider it preferable to photosynthesis which naturally occurs as a substitute. 1894 D. T. MACDOUGAL tr. W. Oels Exper. Plant Physiol. 30 By photo-synthesis is understood that power peculiar to chlorophyll by which water, and the carbon dioxide of the air, are decomposed and formed into complex carbon compounds under the action of light. 1902 Encycl. Brit. 31 760/1 The course of photosynthesis has been with tolerable certainty found to lead to the construction of sugar. 1958 R. Y. STANIER et al. Gen. Microbiol. xi. 213 In bacterial photosyntheses, there is also a light-driven reduction of CO2 to cell material, but oxygen is never produced because water cannot serve as the ultimate hydrogen donor. Instead, the reduction of CO2 is coupled with the oxidation of externally supplied organic or inorganic hydrogen donors. 1975 H. SMITH Photochrome & Photomorphogenesis ii. 15 Photosynthesis presents an excellent example of light and dark reactions acting sequentially. 2004 Nature 13 May p. ix, Phytoplankton perform about half the Earth's photosynthesis.
- 2. Chem. The synthesis of a compound by a photochemical reaction. Now rare.
- 1913 Jrnl. Physical Chem. 17 561 The author considers..that photochemical processes may be grouped under four heads: photosynthesis; photolysis; photo-isomerization and photo-polymerization; photo-oxiodation and photo-reduction. 1914 S. E. SHEPPARD Photo-chem. vii. 295 The photo-synthesis of phosgene (COCl2) from chlorine and carbon monoxide..has been studied by several observers. 1927 Proc. Royal Soc. A. 116 198 The photosynthesis of nitrogen compounds was discussed, evidence being brought forward of the production of coniine by the action of light on formaldehyde in the presence of ammonia. 1967 Proc. Royal Soc. A. 301 34 Polanyi..predicted the possibilities of laser action associated with the photosynthesis of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen bromide.
- •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Constructive participation
"Oh wow. Jimbo Wales and Cary Bass are part of the evil IDcabal. Wow, that is a far-reaching and powerful cabal. So, where do I sign up? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"
- Right. While edit conflicts are inevitable, they are quite annoying, particularly when they're caused by something completely and utterly unhelpful. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Really? The remark looked constructive to me. The point should be clear: when in order to construct claims of cabalism one needs to have the upper echelons of the Foundation as part of the cabal one might want to do a reality check. Sarcasm is not inherently unproductive. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Considering I was literally speaking on a possible explanation as to why these editors flock together, it was completely pointless. Your participation in the discussion serves little more purpose than distraction. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Really? The remark looked constructive to me. The point should be clear: when in order to construct claims of cabalism one needs to have the upper echelons of the Foundation as part of the cabal one might want to do a reality check. Sarcasm is not inherently unproductive. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Oh wow. Jimbo Wales and Cary Bass are part of the evil IDcabal. Wow, that is a far-reaching and powerful cabal. So, where do I sign up? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)" is pointless distraction. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Lara, you have this habit of repeating yourself rather than responding to what people write. Why don't you go and read what I wrote and then respond to it rather than repeat yourself again. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you make no sense to me. The featured status of the ID article is irrelevant to either this current incident or to the "IDcab" issue. It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about, which causes confusion, and time to be wasted. Not to mention, you apparently can't grasp the situation. There's a lot of history here. And, really, I'm tired of repeating myself to you. You're right, I do repeat myself. You don't get it, and I've got better things to do than spend my time trying to change that. So comment as you will, but keep in mind that you're coming off horribly ignorant of the history. Jennavecia (Talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I should bother responding to this comment because it demonstrates such profound misunderstanding of what is going on or has gone on or anything like that that I don't know where to start. Frankly, I strongly suspect that the only person I'm coming across as "ignorant" to is you. Repeating yourself, having replies to those comments that address your points and then claiming that the other individual doesn't understand and is coming across as "horribly ignorant" isn't helpful. The bottom line is that the central claim of the IDcabal meme - that there was an amorphous group of serious POV pushing editors pushing an anti-ID POV is demonstratably false. Thus, the only way this meme has any further room for reproduction is claiming that those editors did some amorphous bad thing by keeping each others talk pages watchlisted or something similar. And without the central claim of POV pushing the labeling of a group as the IDcabal becomes even more amorphous. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you make no sense to me. The featured status of the ID article is irrelevant to either this current incident or to the "IDcab" issue. It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about, which causes confusion, and time to be wasted. Not to mention, you apparently can't grasp the situation. There's a lot of history here. And, really, I'm tired of repeating myself to you. You're right, I do repeat myself. You don't get it, and I've got better things to do than spend my time trying to change that. So comment as you will, but keep in mind that you're coming off horribly ignorant of the history. Jennavecia (Talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Apollo hoax article
The lead says, "Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided." By implication, it's only a small percentage of doubts. That seems pretty clear as to what the mainstream opinion is. "These theories have been generally discounted" adds no new information, and runs the risk of baiting the hoaxster trolls. If you had any idea what we went through on this page a year and a half ago, you would understand. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bubba73 is on the fence about the citation. Maybe read what he says and see what you think. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- dropping by, I'm puzzled that some numerical data about the degree of acceptance is considered inappropriate. it's better than vague words. People can make of it what they will--that's not our job. DGG (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what it is: Whether we say "delusional" or "misguided", either way that's a personal attack on moon hoaxsters, or at least they would see it as such. And they would have a point, because it's opinionated. Reporting the results of a poll is neutral. Reporting the results of tests, as with Mythbusters, is at least factual. Name-calling is not neutral, no matter how prestigious its source is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had thought the article said something about "misguided". Your last version does not make that statement. I have restored your version. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what it is: Whether we say "delusional" or "misguided", either way that's a personal attack on moon hoaxsters, or at least they would see it as such. And they would have a point, because it's opinionated. Reporting the results of a poll is neutral. Reporting the results of tests, as with Mythbusters, is at least factual. Name-calling is not neutral, no matter how prestigious its source is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- dropping by, I'm puzzled that some numerical data about the degree of acceptance is considered inappropriate. it's better than vague words. People can make of it what they will--that's not our job. DGG (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD
An article whose first AfD you closed has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix in popular culture (2nd nomination). You may wish to be aware. DGG (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article
In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Good work
I've noticed you on several different occasions recently (here and here, for example) and I just wanted to say good work. :) --Alexc3 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Doubling
From Talk:Werewolf: Note that Gygax didn't write 3E, so he isn't responsible, haw haw. Tempshill (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
- Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)
WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
- 349 W. 12th St. #3
- Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
- By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop
FOR UPDATES
Check out:
- Wikis Take Manhattan main website
This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your comment, Josh. I decided that my opinions are very unwelcomed. I have moved into the background, have little desire to engage narrow-minded people such as Squeak, and will watch as the article tries to move its way through an assessment process. I doubt seriously that the article will ever advance into a Good Article category. Hag2 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
just curious
You haven't signed the Mediation Agreement. Is there a reason? Hag2 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC Guidelines regarding the DB Article
|
Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. |
Josh, allow me to remind you that per RfC instructions, outside (uninvolved) editors are invited to post their comments on the disputed issues. Please leave this section for outside input ONLY. Let the process do its work. In light of these guidelines, I have moved your responses in the RfC section to a separate section for previously involved editors to respond.
Your anticipated cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Re:1RR enquiry
I thought AN was a better place for such inquiries... I reposted it, but 12h and I there are no replies or comments - and the problem continues :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Not sure what to do. It looks like he's stopped reverting for now. If it continues again, I'd suggest bringing it up on ANI again. Or possibly a note on the arbitration enforcement page. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wiki-conspiracy
Hi: I enabled the email thingy. I was not aware of its availability.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Alright, how does email work? How would I email you?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Gonaguas
I chose to redirect it because of the racist language used and the lack of sufficient notability. They may or may not exist and if they do exist, they are a subset of Coloured people.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The terms "kaffirs" and "hottentots" are considered in very poor taste today. It is as if a page on wikipedia were calling African-Americans "niggers" and Native Americans "redskins". I understand that an article existed on them in 1911, but in light of modern day usage, I feel the article is better left as a redirect.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Dowsing edit
When you reverted my edit to Dowsing you left the edit summary "a reliable source that requires access is still a reliable source". Maybe. But demanding that readers divulge their credit card number is surely opening Wikipedia up to serious abuse. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your inclusion of BLP-violating material has been reverted and a rationale posted on the talk page. Please engage there before reverting material removed due to BLP concerns. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: AFD Close
Unless an Admin would like to go over this close, I'm not going to reopen the debate. It is a clear Snow close. DustiSPEAK!! 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on Joe the Plumber's tax liens and taxation quote
Hello JoshuaZ,
The material that you contributed to the Joe the Plumber article is currently still in the consensus process and under arbitration review. Please contribute to the consensus discussion and wait until it is reached before re-adding the disputed topic. Please refer to WP:CONS for a reference on consensus building. There is also a link on the talk page to the arbitration request page. And in order to prevent an edit war, please do not revert the changes or else a report may have to be filed. --Amwestover (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was taking part in the discussion. There is a clear consensus. And coming from the person who seems to be at 6 reverts I am a bit amused by a warning not to edit war. Ah well. Such is life. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- You still believe that consensus is somehow a vote. It's not a long policy article, I strongly suggest you actually read it. --Amwestover (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- These policy pages aren't long and judging by your comments it doesn't sound like you've ever read them, or at least haven't read them in a very long time and may have forgotten what you read. Sometimes they change, but usually not much. I highly suggest you read WP:CONS and WP:DISPUTE. They will help you recognize when there is a dispute and how to reach consensus. --Amwestover (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Notes from the Road userfication
Done...it's at User:JoshuaZ/Notes. Have fun! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Inclusionist (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Cold fusion
HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Article subject's husband is writing (Barbara West)
Since you're an admini., I thought I'd bring this to your attention.
Barbara West (TV news anchor)'s husband, Wade West, is editting wikipedia-- or at least someone claiming to be him. Besides the claim that 90% of reporters are Democrats, he wrote: "If Wiki is really interested in posting the truth, rather than others' opinions, suggest leaving thisposted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin but I will take a look when I get a chance. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA (2)
Hi JoshuaZ! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I haven't seen you around much lately, and happy to see that you're still editing! Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
...you know the drill ;-) J.delanoygabsadds 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I trust you in that there were sources for her personal information out there. No one indicated anything, and that's why I erred on the cautious side of BLP there. I would have struck my !vote, but the AfD already closed as a keep. Thanks, anyway, MuZemike (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
confusion
Are you still confused, or did you reread that comment here? Everyme 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- ??? Dude, I concluded my obviously fake, humorous "rant" with </kidding>. I was, guess what, kidding. I even referred to it as such again further down in the same thread as, I quote myself, a fake rant. I was kidding. Get it? Good. Now please, kindly stop upsetting me by not getting it. Everyme 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, nevermind and sorry if I came off as too angry above. Everyme 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
|
Zeituni Onyango re-written
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joshua. I am surprised you would consider this person to be notable. However, yes, you are right in that WP:BLP1E is not presently a speedy deletion criteria. As you have protested the deletion (on process grounds?), I shall restore the article and send it to AFD. fish&karate 11:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Joshua, thank you for your attention in this matter. I have posted a reponse over at the BLP Noticeboard. I welcome you and other editors to please take a look and help me resolve these issues. Edezenhall (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
NYC Meetup: You are invited!
|
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Request
Please see my talk page. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of topic ban
Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Adnan Oktar/Hoca trial
Hi! You did a nice job on the Adnan Oktar-page. Maybe you can use these articles about Oktars criminal past
The Force Behind the Adnan Hoca Operation: Agar's Revenge Wanted for $ 1.5 million!
One opposition member less Adnan Hoca followers seek Asilturk's help Smells like Susurluk
The professor who saved Adnan Hoca
The Ciller-Adnan Hocaci alliance
The Secret of Success Jeff5102 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- As great as it is that you have found all these sources, don't you think it starts to violate WP:UNDUE? After all, this guy has just been sentenced. He will probably appeal. Maybe the trial is politically motivated. Maybe the entire thing will vaporize like it did before. How reliable anyway is the Turkish Daily News? Adding all that material from those sources might be a bit unfair and start to approach a smear campaign. Remember we have WP:BLP to consider.--Filll (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe it will vaporize. This thing is already going on for nine years. And when mr. Oktar appeals, it will go on even longer,
- By the way, only a few sources in the English language about this case are accessible. The Turkish Daily News is as far as I know a reliable source. But of course, I coulds be wrong. Nevertheless, I also found a website about this case that is from mr. Oktars group: [5]. If it contains valuable information, we might use it as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about the hoca's case vaporizing, but the articles linked to above sure have! The newspaper is defunct! If the articles were important, I suggest you copy them from Google/Yahoo's cache without delay, as they are being purged (I came across this conversation by searching the entire site for TDN links.)
p.s. TDN is as reliable a Turkish source as any, but it's too late to argue. --Adoniscik(t, c) 02:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Raven Alder
JoshuaZ, I do beg your pardon. This matter was looked into independently by several different administrators, who agreed that the article could be deleted. The claim to notability was minimal at best, and there were no reliable references to the article as required by WP:BLP. Also in accordance with that same policy, the subject of the article requested it be deleted, presumably through one of Wikipedia's email queues. If you have a problem with the manner in which I use my tools, I am always open to discussing it in a civil manner. In the future, please do not accuse others of abuse. I am open to restoring the article for an AfD discussion should you wish, however I agree with your assessment that it would be unnecessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- When I reviewed the article, the claims to notability did not appear to be sufficient to merit an article. In reviewing the history of the article (which yes, I did do, and am doing again now for the second time since deleting the article), the only source in the final version of the article was to a message board post, and thus unreliable. Doing a Google search (Google tests, by the way, are not measures of notability), I'm not seeing any sources that are a) substantially different from the one we already saw b) reliable or c) non-trivial. I looked at more than just the top 10 hits, so you know. Could you provide one of the sources you say exist? That would be a considerable help.
- As for the courtesy deletion thing, current practice seems to be that such articles will usually go through a quiet deletion, such as PROD, speedy, or a well-justified IAR deletion, if the request seems to be valid and the subject has only borderline notability. This is what seemed to be the case here. Consensus can be built on such actions; if there are no objections to the deletion, or the community generally acknowledges that it would have been deleted anyway (as you said yourself), then it can be added to the stack of articles that have gone through that process. In this case, I did discuss the matter with other active administrators, one of whom brought the matter to my attention and was considering deleting the article himself. Deliberation did take place, and deletion appeared to me and others to be a reasonable solution to the situation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Move
It appears that it should be VLCC based on other refs. It appears that the link is mistaken, and so the ship should be VLCC Sirius Star. However, a search shows that there are no other ship articles on Wikipedia beginning with VLCC, so I wasn't going to move it to that. Also, MV doesn't seem to be the right description. SpencerT♦C 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Someone with better knowledge of the subject reaffirmed my view, and it was moved it to MV Sirius Star. SpencerT♦C 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Arabic wiki
Hi there, can u pleas, participate in the arabic wiki talk page? Regards --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thanks
for fixing up those double redirects my idiocy caused.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
West Bromwich Network Church
Give me an appraisal of the section you wanted improving, when you have the time... Hyper3 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
DEADTREES and me
I don't think the medium is important. Reliable online publications should certainly count. I was citing all of the names that this concept has been invoked by, and "DEADTREES" is one slogan animated by a similar goal. To me, the essential concept is that an individual is notable enough that a reliable third-party publication has written an overview of their life. Such biographies demonstrate significant notability, and they can serve as a guiding templates so that Wikipedia avoids undue weight.
Thanks for scrutinizing candidate questions: they take time to answer, and I'm glad they help guide voters. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
boston meetup
I've updated Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston with the latest info from meetup.com ... you should register on the latter site to get email updates etc. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Q&A followup
Hey there. I answered your followup to Rspeer's Q&A; I expect you were waiting for those answers, hence this note. :-) — Coren (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A question...
Is there a reason why you aren't an admin? I don't get it... Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind long stories; I've had to dig quite a bit into some of the back stories in various cases as my editing milieu (science and fringe subjects) has had a long contentious history here. (It's not an area where you can safely ignore wikipolitics.) Besides, I'm nosy.
- If you'd rather not write a saga, you could just link to the relevant pages. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
|
|
|
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! |
Check the Fadix redirect
I redirected the talkpage under Fadix account. I don't see what's the deal on reverting the userâge though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockofadix (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- In short, I don't see why I am not allowed to make a final comment on my own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockofadix (talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What's the big deal to report me on the administrators noticeboard, one admin is enough. Is there no better things to report? Oh no, I forgot..., no! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockofadix (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Archiving assistance
Hi JoshuaZ. :) Would it be alright if I setup an archiving bot for your talkpage? The page is currently very long, around 165K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could setup a bot to check the page once a day, and automatically archive any inactive threads, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? Let me know, --Elonka 16:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. :) It'll kick in sometime within the next 24 hours, and archive anything older than 60 days to Archive #10. It'll fill that up to a size of 250K, and then automatically start the next archive page. I also renamed the existing archives, so they'd work with the standardized nav templates so you can easily go back and forth from page to page if you so desire. Redirects from the older names still exist, too. If you'd like any other tweaks (size of archive, age of threads), let me know! --Elonka 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Samaria
BTW, at Talk:Israeli settlement#Samaria poll, I restructured the format a little bit. For your own comment, it's clear that you don't like option # 3, but it's unclear whether you have a preference for # 1 or # 2. If you'd like to rework your comment to make this more clear, please feel free. :) --Elonka 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV
Joshua, thank you for this revert. There is a dispute between ID opponents and supporters as to whether ID has religious premises.
There is no dispute about whether "creation science" has religious premises, though, is there? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--A NobodyMy talk 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Creationist websites a WP:RS?
Someone has added a link calling Ian Plimer a prejurer from a creationist website. Is that okay? Tgreach (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Esther Williams
Those were excerpts from her autobiography. If one reports on her life, why can't her own words be used?
Savolya (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)SavolyaSavolya (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear JoshuaZ,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
|
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Googlehits and Hits from Google
Hi, thanks for explaining this. I wasn't getting through - and I wasn't even thinking of getting into the difference between a hit and a unique visitor. Springnuts (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully that got the point across. The AfD has been closed anyways (and I hadn't even made up my mid yet. Ah well...) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Chuck Missler
I joined in the thread you started at User talk:Hrafn#Chuck Missler, but my post was promptly deleted by Hrafn. If you look at the thread above it, and at the history summarized at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User:Hrafn, you'll see that this is part of a pattern.
After your question about notability, Hrafn responded to you that he thought there was some YouTube video about bananas. For your information, the comment I added, now vanished, was:
- It was peanut butter, not bananas. Missler himself may be bananas, but the YouTube video showed him arguing that a jar of peanut butter disproves evolution. It shows more than 750,000 views. JamesMLane t c 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of Missler's books are self-published, but he's also been published by Thomas Nelson (publisher), a major house. I think he's notable. The more important issue in my mind, though, is whether the decision about his notability should be made by the Wikipedia community, collectively, or by Hrafn, individually -- hence the EAR.
Hrafn has responded to the EAR by reiterating his view that, if he deems a subject nonnotable, then policy allows him to blank the article content and substitute a redirect -- even after two AfD's, brought on the basis of alleged nonnotability, have failed. If you have an opinion on that subject, you might want to comment at the EAR. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A RfC you participated in is being discussed
- Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thanks for participating in my RfA. If I had been more sensitive, I might have invited you to co-nominate (since you suggested I run for admin earlier), but in the last-minute rush I never got around to it. Of course once the process started I felt I couldn't mention it to you for fear of the appearance of impropriety.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Proposed deletion of Expelled: No Intelligence Designed
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Expelled: No Intelligence Designed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- This is a useless unprintworthy redirect.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jchthys (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- So I guess it should stay on, but whoever thought of that title doesn't know what it means! Jchthys (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Josh
would you offer an opinion over here on the RFC? Thanks.__Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit busy right now but I'll try to take a look tomorrow night. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
NYC Meetup: You're invited!
|
New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza
|
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An article who voted on in the past concerning to delete it or not, has been recreated and nommed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein 3rd nom --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You bastard! (said in an affectionate British manner)
A Number - I can't top that at the moment! DuncanHill (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted 4 times now on Denis Rancourt. Please don't repeatedly revert. It can lead to blocks. Please discuss the matter in more detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:3RR does not apply to potentially libelous material, per WP:BLP. And I quote, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Public expression of anti-semitism is a criminal offence in Canada. The statement (incorrectly) implying Rancourt is an anti-semite is an accusation of criminal behaviour, and will be removed every time it is added. -- SmashTheState (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Seems the claim that Rancourt blames the "Jewish lobby" were entirely untrue. The newspaper which printed the libellous claim just printed a full and public retraction and apology:
- Where's yours? -- SmashTheState (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This is unrelated to the previous matter, but it has to do with the same article so I thought I'd post here. I rearranged the sections in the article, which you reverted, to reflect the reasons for which the subject is notable. When the article was nominated for deletion, it was kept primarily because of his activist, not academic, activities, so I thought that it would make sense to have the most important information on him at the top of the article. I won't edit war with you on this one, I just wanted to let you know why I made that edit.
The more important matter is that I also noticed you removed the part about the Jewish lobby even though La Rotonde specifies that Rancourt has spoken about the Israel lobby and Jewish lobby, which makes it clear that they differentiate between the two. Your edit was justified since I mistakenly put the wrong source into the article. I replaced the source, which was a letter to the editor, that I brought up just to show the reaction his position on the matter has created in the UofO's student newspapers. (I didn't mean for it to be used in the article, just shown to people on the talk page to give editors context on this issue.) Having said that, I've put in the proper source, this article, which states: "Le professeur avance que l’administration est sous l’influence du lobby juif et que celui-ci a constitué un véritable réseau de pouvoir influant dans des domaines variés." -> The professors submits that the administration is under the influence of the Jewish lobby and that .... " I don't believe this is anti-semetic at all. If it were, why would an article on the jewish lobby exist at all? Anyway, I just thought I'd drop you a note to explain my edits, since editing this page has been fraught with controversy, and I don't want to foster ill-will with anyone. Cheers. Letsgoridebikes (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I replied to you at WT:CSD. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Eliot Stein
It wasn't a request by the individual. I said in the deletion reason that the ticket mentioned other reasons (in addition to those I mentioned). There are other valid concerns. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I can't give out any sensitive information. One thing I can say is that while the subject did not actually request deletion, it was one of the only reasonable alternatives and something he likely would have pursued given that his requests could not be met. Given that he is also the creator of the article, and he was pretty much the sole contributor (as almost every other edit to the page was reverted) the deletion could be considered as appropriate in accordance with G7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I wish I could give further detailed information but cannot. Also, there shouldn't really be any problem in recreating the article if somebody else wanted to do that, provided it is properly sourced, etc. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Email
Replied, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
|
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Axmann
Why on earth would I propose banning you, a quality admin user? (Whoops, didn't realize you weren't an admin. →Dyl@n620 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) My ban proposal/wish was directed at Axmann. →Dyl@n620 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was endorsing the block because I agreed with what you and Wikidemon said. →Dyl@n620 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
.jpg)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Contemplative Prayer
JoshuaZ-
My error - I thought you added the svcchapel source - I meant to remove it, as there are two issues with it:
1) It is a self-published source (which does not comply with WP:V) 2) It was a dead (404) link.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
AFD Re-opened
As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You're invited...
|
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Leslie
I don't believe Wikipedia takes the BLP issue seriously at all. It creates a policy, then refuses to enforce it with biographies of anyone who has ever attracted the fleeting attention of the press. A policy that is never enforced is not a policy that is respected. While this article is probably not the breaking point, the time will come when this refusal to consider the human dignity of the people we write about will bite Wikipedia on the arse and deservedly so. It is the one great blemish on an otherwise worthy project.
As your statement "someone covered in international news and continuing to get coverage isn't going to be harmed by a Wikipedia article" is just plain wrong. Newspaper coverage is ephemeral and fleeting, Wikipedia is supposed to be for posterity. Our actions here continue to harm the subject over and above the media coverage. The idea that the media have given her a good kicking, so our further little kick won't hurt is, to me, morally indefensible.
We have now enshrined one young girl's misfortune and her attempts to avoid an awful fate in a permanent, "encyclopedic" record and in the effort to keep this article we have likened the subject to a serial killer and to drug smugglers. A triumph for Wikipedia indeed! -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sports statistics
Dear JoshuaZ, I appreciate that you may not deem the sports articles especially important (I'm not sure they're especially important); however, I've noticed that they're more prone to vandalism (people changing the stats to false ones in support of their team) than most. Since you're an admin, I have a request: can we restrict editing to such pages to signed-in users? It's incredibly tedious correcting such information, really.
Thanks,
--Leon (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
: 1 June 2009
- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
A.E. Wilder-Smith
listen i dont need the quotes okay but the rest will stay or be put back on continually —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlover32795 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) |
Mifter (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Article userfied per request
See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Given the sensitive nature of this, you and any interested editors have 1 week to alleviate the community concenrns over WP:BLP problems. I will run an MFD in about a week to judge the community's pulse over whether or not the problems have been fixed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check my message at User talk:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. I suggest you get some outside opinions before moving this to article space to ensure that it is in compliance with WP:BLP. Not that I have doubts about you, but this is an important issue, and the topic is prone to drama. Better safe than sorry. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
JZ, what's your connection to Boothroyd? It looks like the "anon" that originally created the article started it in your userspace. And now it's back in your userspace after admins rushed to delete the article when the controversy hit. What's going on? It seems like a sordid web of some sort. I don't see why we can't go back to having an article with a couple sentences in it about the latest incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't in my userspace originally. I'm not sure why it looks that way. Moves can sometimes do odd things to title behavior. And since some difs have been selectively deleted that can help make things look even stranger. If you do think there should be an article, the most helpful thing you can do is to help expand the draft in my userspace and help track down reliably sourced content that is not about the current controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. So this is the first time you've had it in your userspace? As far as working on the article, I think it should be restored and two sentences added about the latest issues. If someone wants to expand it or improve the sourcing, good on them. I'm not that interested except in so far as I think the attempt at censorship and a cover up is obscene, especially given the circumstances that caused this latest incident. That those attempting the whitewash are many of our high power editors including Arbcoms and Admins is particularly troubling. I will be interested in their explanations if and when their actions compound the bad news and become a focus of media attention. It's enough already with the subterfuge. We don't need to add to the indignity of this black eye caused by the abuse of our policies by a trusted member of our community. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a coverup here although I can understand why it looks like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that when the subject of one the many Wikipedia articles on marginally notable editors receives very substantial news coverage because of a controversy they suddenly become non-notable and must be speedy deleted right away? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. It does mean that there are more eyes on it so when the person requests deletion they are more likely to be listened to. This is not the only example of this. There was an example a while back, I can't remember which article, where the article was written before some event occurred and the person was of questionable notability then. They then hit the news for doing something stupid and the article became mainly about that and then was AfDed under BLP1E grounds. That's partially what may be happening here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well maybe a memo needs to go out that if we're hosting an article on any editor of marginal notability, when they receive substantial coverage for some impropriety or controversy, that will not be a time to process courtesy deletions. And the whole claim that he tried to delete it in 2005 is a bit bogus anyway. He nommed his own article (created by an anon in London...) saying he wasn't sure he was notable enough, and I didn't see any kind of objection when his buddies stepped up to tell him how modest and notable he is after all. Only now when the shit hits the fan does he want it deleted? The whole thing stinks and I'm sorry to see even a few editors I think are generally okay side with that kind of censorship that compounds the problems of COI and abuse that created the mess in the first place. If Jehochman or anyone else is adamant about deleting this kind of article there's a whole list of Wikipedia editors with articles so they should start there instead of the ones that are actually in the news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. It does mean that there are more eyes on it so when the person requests deletion they are more likely to be listened to. This is not the only example of this. There was an example a while back, I can't remember which article, where the article was written before some event occurred and the person was of questionable notability then. They then hit the news for doing something stupid and the article became mainly about that and then was AfDed under BLP1E grounds. That's partially what may be happening here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that when the subject of one the many Wikipedia articles on marginally notable editors receives very substantial news coverage because of a controversy they suddenly become non-notable and must be speedy deleted right away? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a coverup here although I can understand why it looks like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. So this is the first time you've had it in your userspace? As far as working on the article, I think it should be restored and two sentences added about the latest issues. If someone wants to expand it or improve the sourcing, good on them. I'm not that interested except in so far as I think the attempt at censorship and a cover up is obscene, especially given the circumstances that caused this latest incident. That those attempting the whitewash are many of our high power editors including Arbcoms and Admins is particularly troubling. I will be interested in their explanations if and when their actions compound the bad news and become a focus of media attention. It's enough already with the subterfuge. We don't need to add to the indignity of this black eye caused by the abuse of our policies by a trusted member of our community. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Boothroyd
Thanks for the invitation, but I do not intend to touch the Boothroyd article itself (in any location) with a ten foot pole until someone does something about the threats Jehochman has made toward me. TAway (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
New article
Hello. You may wish to take a look at some of the material, and sources referenced, at the new article Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ, Cirt is a damn good article creator. Perhaps you'd invite them to work on the BLP you have in userspace. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Cirt is of course welcome to help out. I doubt it will be up to keeping standards if I'm the only one who works on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
email...
...back atcha. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In case you did not see it immediately, Sam Blacketer/Boothroyd possibly urgent
[6] You better weigh in at that link. rootology (C)(T) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- JZ, it seems to me that your hosting the article in your userspace isn't the best of ideas. I wonder if you'd be willing to let me move it to mine. No one likes me anyway, so won't be any trouble. :) But seriously, I think it would be prudent for all concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Before I move it I also want to make it clear that I intend to adjust it per my understanding of our BLP and undue weight standards before putting it up at DRV. Obviously I don't own my userspace, so others will have a say, but my intention is to adjust its focus to the biographical aspects of the subject's life and to include the present controversy in a more compartmentalized way. If you're still okay with my moving it let me know. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio
"The institute unifies clinicians and scientists in departments" tingled my copyvio sense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd
User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
JZ. I think it's time to let go. There are forces at work here that are beyond our control... :) But seriously, I obviously agree that the abuses of our processes and distortions of appropriate procedures are and were wrong. At this point the article should be allowed to get a work up in userspace and then a fair and orderly hearing according to our normal practices and procedures. But it's not going to happen. I think we have to let events unfold, and hope for the best. It's been a distorted and abusive process, but shit happens and there's other work to be done. No one needs to go down with the ship. Just my two cents. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Moore Article
Thanks Josh. I'm new at this, being only 15 years old. I completly see your point. "Hypocritical" is neither appropriate nor neutral. However, I'm confused about your deletion of the part of the depression and cursing, as both are actually cite-able from reliable sources, especially the depression part which was admitted by Moore on CBS, Associated Press, etc., which are reputable news sources.
I was curious as to why the depression part was deleted if the Miley Cyrus article allows mention of the racist activites that she did
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Rachel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachgreen8326 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Titan Globe
Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
WP/FC event @ end of June?
Hi Joshua, would you be interested in joining a Boston-area event at the end of June about free culture and Wikipedia? We didn't have enough interest for this past weekend, but are still hoping to have a small event here, leading up to the Wikiconference in New York next month. +sj+ 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
: 15 June 2009
- Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
- News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
- Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
: 22 June 2009
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your repeated emails to me off-wiki, response in detail on my talk page
I decline to deal with you over e-mail, and in particular over anything else, as I really just don't have the time, and I despise secrecy of this sort. You can discuss any concerns with me here:
Where I have laid out my views, for you to respond to, as that is what you wanted to do anyway. rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved RFC
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
: 29 June 2009
- News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
- Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation