Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 3 September 2006

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

Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002

Next archiving will occur around September 5

In Reference To Danny

While he may have certain privelidges as a representative of the foundation, he does not have the right to abuse those privelidges to further the cause of a personal gripe. Removing comments is a controversial act at the best of times, but a representative of the foundation removing them because they ask questions that he doesn't want people asking is outrageous. My aim is to resolve the issue diplomatically, and through the rules established here on Misplaced Pages - while he may be able to circumvent these rules somewhat, that doesn't mean it's good or constructive to do so, especially not in this case. --Badharlick 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny explained nothing - his "explaination" as you call it was vague and smacked of a coverup, which smacked of the same kind of attitude evidenced by the admins toward the whole Daniel Brandt issue. That is, like it or get out, and destroy anything that might compromise the pure and clean image of the godly wikipedia. Most pathetic. --Badharlick 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the comments he removed were nothing to do with any members who had left, they were all comments about the article, questioning the nature of it's existance. I've looked back through the edit history many times and seen some very good points being raised that were later removed. I couldn't give a flying shit about Brandt, to be honest I think he's a whiney ass, but what does concern me is this squelching of opinions by higher ups with an agenda. --Badharlick 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more specific; The comments he removed were not in specific reference to the person who left, they were in reference to the way that Brandt was accused of phoning this person at their workplace, an action of Brandt, not Katefan0. DDD DDD was discussing how this was assumed to be fact despite the fact that neither side had any proof, and that when Brandt attempted to clear his name, his messages were removed. It seems to me that innocent actions have been used as an excuse for, or to disguise, malicious (for want of a better word) actions, and this would be the issue that has been disguised. There were no issues of respect, nobody was badgering the person, questioning Katefan0's integrity, or disrespecting Katefan0 in any way. In other words, in my opinion, there was no reason to delete those messages. Maybe my opinion was wrong, and if you can convince me that it was then I'll concede that, but until then I'll remain satisfied with my view that it was no more than squelching. --Badharlick 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane

I refer to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block for User:CrazyInSane. I find nothing in what you have written there, the diffs you supplied at WP:AN/I, or in his recent contribution history to justify any block and certianly not an indefinite block. I am concerned at your apparent lack of discussion with the user prior to blocking. It is normal to warn people and to proceed through an escalation of warnings - at the very least from {{blatantvandal}} to blocked. You do that before going to WP:AN/I. Can you please explain to me what it is that exhausted the community's patience.--A Y Arktos\ 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you did fine here. Responding to User:AYArktos above, {{blatantvandal}} would be wrong as User:CrazyInSane wasn't a vandal. You reported it on AN/I, you listed evidence, you explained your actions. There was some discussion about lessening the block and filing an RfC, which you did and said you would, respectively. You did well, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I do not think the user is a blatant vandal, nor necessarily would that template have been appropriate, but it is a warning template with a one-off escalation point. Others, generally require more escalation - see the grid of warnings at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. If you can't justify a warning, thereby clarifying your objections to his behaviour and allowing a response or modification of behaviour, how can you justify a block? Also, please don't get me wrong, I don't endorse the user's POV, but I most strenuously object to gagging him without going through appropriate escalation procedures which either allow him to modify his behaviour or to have gathered community concensus (does not = 2 other's comments unless no-one else joins in the publicly available discussion in an appopriate forum, eg RfC). I still have difficulties with the length of time of the block because of the lack of warnings and lack of recent related blocking history.--A Y Arktos\ 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not Voltaire but Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and the reason it is overused is because freedom of speech is overly threatened but some of us do need to clarify that we are actually indifferent to the AD/BC debate vs CE, it is the gagging, in this case blocking, that we object to. You had not clarified earlier that the week long block is for sockpuppet abuse. As stated before I do support blocking a sockpuppet. However, I note the user was upfront that he was using a sockpuppet and was doing so to put his side of the story. Reference his contributions - NewUser0001 (talk · contribs), they were not to continue POV edits and he declared who he was. His use of a sockpuppet would not have been necessary if you had warned him before blocking him and allowed him to discuss the problem areas with you.--A Y Arktos\ 00:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct on where the quote comes from. As for his sockpuppetry, look at this dif where he declares that he will evade the block with more sockpuppets if the block stays . JoshuaZ 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case I assume good faith. He doesn't say he will avoid the block, he says he will monitor the article. The article is the editing experience the user and I have in common and we now go back quite some months on it. I have always found his behaviour there to be fine. When I challenged him in the early stages of the article with violations of WP:NOR, he responded politely and with citations. I have never found him to lie. He does push his POV, but I find I can cope and that he is not disruptive like some I am dealing with: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* - and that anon goes on and on - more recent carryings on partly documented on RfC's talk page. So by comparison ... :-) I don't want to escalate to an RfC but I would like you to warn users before blocking them in future please. I have no doubt that you too are acting in good faith :-) Regards --A Y Arktos\ 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he would not edit the article he said he would monitor it from various IPs. Why he would mention the various IPs unless he was intending to edit is beyond me, so AGF here seems to be a bit strained, especially given his history of sockpuppetry. As for warning users more in the future, you seem to be not the only user who feels that way. I shall endeavor in the future to warn users more before escalating to long term blocks. JoshuaZ 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Experts and Misplaced Pages

You said: "More to the point- Misplaced Pages does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is not true for technical areas, which is where my confusion comes from. e.g., From uric acid "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can...." Pproctor 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an expert who can help improve the article under the constrains of NPOV, RS etc. Experts will have more knowledge on how to track down sources and such, but there is no fundamental reliance or trust given to experts. JoshuaZ 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How's it going?

I hope the inevitable kickback is not getting to you. I said I'd post the gory details, I did that at User:JzG/Laura, I think you saw. I'm now moving house. I shall do my best not to get divorced, two out of the three top stress producers is probably enough... Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't get a new job either! Oops - sorry to butt in there. Your story is very moving. I have a sister too. Stephen B Streater 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a moving essay. You have my condolences, and as I have said before, if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. JoshuaZ 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi JoshuaZ. Thank you for your questions. Before I answer them, could you please clarify question #3? Thanks. G.He 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Er yes. I'm not sure what I was trying to say there. I've removed it. JoshuaZ 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

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 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi again. Your questions are now answered and are available on my RfA page. G.He 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hello again Joshua, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm truly glad I recieved your approval—your pragmatic approach to conflicts and your careful analysis of RFAs, AFDs, etc. has changed the way I approach things on wikipedia. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

NPOV tag on Apollo Moon Hoax Accusations

There has been considerable back and forth edits removing and adding the NPOV tag. I believe it should stay for reasons I've stated on the talk page. the most vocal hoax theorist keeps reverting it claiming that my reasons given for adding the tag are not valid. I don't want to run afoul of edit or revert war, but lack the wiki-experience that would allow me to move forward if that is possible. It may be the that hoax theorist editor is intractable. They certainly don't seem to engage appropriately in the discussion on the talk page -- i.e personal attacks, failure to AGF, blatent POV edits, etc. Please advise. Numskll 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of different problems on that page, not all from the hoax theorists. I will stop by later today or tommorow. JoshuaZ 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies

Joshua, in your discussion with new user Schlafly, your responded to him in a decidedly unhelpful way. Specifically, you begged the question and changed the subject, when he criticized the ID articles for bias. When someone explains what is wrong with an article, it's not helpful to say, "Anyway, the article is pretty good overall." We should help him fix it! --Uncle Ed 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not sure which of my comments you think had biting problems. I would appreciate if you could point them out. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Welcome to the light side of the Force.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste of space

Thanks for the extra info on the Bulgarian music scene. In view of that, I have now changed my vote on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Waste_of_time#.5B.5BWaste_of_time.5D.5D to a delete. --BrownHairedGirl 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Carmodities

Did you read a) the article? b) the AFD?

It was spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, glorious spam. It was also a vanity article, for a non-notable company, and it was also a neologism that the non-notable company had invented to promote itself in its own spam.

Enough for you? DS 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read the article and the AfD. However, your closing remark puzzled me slightly since neologism and spam are not by themselves reasons for speedy deletion. Vanity is A7. I was puzzled however because you deleted it saying "The result was delete as spam" which doesn't make sense since spam is not speediable by itself(I think). JoshuaZ 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ageo020 user page.

Hi,

About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks

User:Ageo020

User talk:68.200.41.177

Thanks for getting onto that. I was going at full speed with three screens open and I couldn't keep up with him! - Richardcavell 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aussie pingu trivia

At User talk:Aussie pingu you gave a last warning for vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism, but who first contributed an article on St Francis of Assisi Primary School which appeared innocuous but not notable. I've flagged it for Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good work, ..dave souza, talk 09:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Harun Yahya

A problem of vandalism in Harun Yahya page is going on. Need your atttention. Please. Jitt 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewarding Jitt's request. Jeff5102 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I'll withdraw it now; next time maybe you could nominate me! --TheM62Manchester 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER

Just notifying you of the expired block and that if you are going to make a RfC for my username I am ready to respond. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of that. I intend to file the RfC in a few hours. JoshuaZ 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know. Regards--A Y Arktos\ 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

for the comment on WP:AN - I laughed quite immoderately :-D Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on my RfA

Thanks for checking that page, good to know there wasn't some grand mistake I'm just forgetting about. I wouldn't mind seeing what it was there, if you'd email it to me. I believe my email link should be turned on (though it's seemed to turn itself back off randomly in the past). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sent. JoshuaZ 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formal confirmation?

I already have: Jayjg 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. JoshuaZ 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Thanks! --Durin 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA

Hi JoshuaZ! Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I thank you for your comments and I'll definitely look into them. :)  G.He 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Robdurbar

Unfortunately I did find the message in question in the users talk page about the vandalism. I also feel certain activity posts were too low, and should have been made before attempting to become admin. My oppose vote still continues to stand. --Masssiveego 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

You and I have never interacted, or at least never on a significant level, which is why I am asking you for assistance. I am tired. I want to leave, but not with bullshit on my talkpage. JzG has protected my talkpage and altered a disclaimer I put up, along with deleting the comments of several users he doesnt like. He has made clear, both through his edit summaries and ongoing harassment that he wishes me to leave. As a compromise, I will leave if the disclaimer he posted on my talkpage is removed and replaced with: "I am no longer editing under this account." Nothing more than that, and nothing less. Then I'll leave. For Good. Tchadienne 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an amusing caricature of the truth, since the one removing comments they didn't like was Tchadienne, hence the problem. See WP:ANI right now for the emerging consensus on this particular user. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ParalellUni

Please consider extending his block for a further 48 hours for personal attacks on JzG made on his talk page. I'm sure JzG feels he can't do this himself. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, have you consider becoming an admin? JoshuaZ 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin's looking in to my rap sheet. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware he had you listed on his stalking page. I wouldn't mind doing a joint nom with him if he decides to nominate you (although he may have issues with joint noms, I don't rememeber). JoshuaZ 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not long enough.

48 hours is not long enough. No one would protest indef. JBKramer 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While his edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt, I'd rather not indefinitely block him since 1) some users respond very negatively to their first block but later become more productive 2) I don't see a compelling policy justification for a much longer block since his previous incivility has been mild and he received no earlier blocks. If however, another admin wishes to increase the block time, I will not object. JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two cents from a non-admin if that's okay. The edits in question were the most offensive I've ever seen here (and given that I tend to follow WP:ANI and WP:RfAr, that's saying something). And, unlike most uncivil or uncivilized comments, where a user says something that pops into his head and then can't take it back, in this instance, the user took the time to stroll over the JzG's userspace and figure out precisely what would be the most offensive things he could come up with. I find blocks of any length regrettable except in cases of absolute necessity and occasionally lobby to commute them (just the other day I was trying to help out a younger user who got in over his head with sniping about a wrestling page, and I've also posted to one of the arbitrators about an unwarranted block proposal in a pending case) ... but there are limits.

I do see (only) two counter-arguments to an extremely lengthy block here. The first is that the user needs access to the arbitration pages for the pending case. The second is that upon being able to edit again, we will see if there is any repetition of the remarks that were directed against JzG, which if it occurred would be likely to result in an uncontroversial community ban. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you. Once again I am in debt to you for handling something you shouldn't have had to deal with. ParalelUni's anon edit to User talk:JzG/Laura is probably the most contemptible thing I have seen on Misplaced Pages. I'm used to a bit of robust debate, but that was calculated and vile. Some things are hard to laugh off. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Your RfA

I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to them as completely as I could. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm an open book. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me

You just gave a 24 hour block to an AOL IP, and like most AOL blocks, there's no sign of vandalism, and the blocking summary doesn't make any sense, so unless this involves some sort of situation with deleted pages, that may be hiding vandalistic edits, I'd like to ask that the block be lifted so that I can continue to comment about dark matter--152.163.100.137 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP is now unblocked. Let me know if you have any further problems. JoshuaZ 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi JoshuaZ. Thanks for replying to that creationist on my talk page. I was a little snowed under with work, so was grateful for the intervention. Not that it did a lot of good. The whole exchange reminded me, again, that most of the time there's really no arguing with these people. It's just not possible to make any headway. Still, always worth trying, since you never know when you might make a difference. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize

JoshuaZ, your repeated removal of Evolution and reference from Pseudoscience appears to be vandalism. I have explained in edit summaries how this entry meets the criterion for the list in the article. The criterion states (currently) that the items listed have critics that state that part or all of an item listed has elements of pseudoscience. I realize that your POV may be contrary to some of these critics, but as a Misplaced Pages administrator, I would have thought you would know better than to censor such criticism. 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading WP:RS. JoshuaZ 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So that's why you removed it. You should have said! However, on checking my ref, I find that the "The Roman Theological Forum" are a group of european and american scholars who have been regularly publishing well referenced articles for about 20 years. I have also found them used as Misplaced Pages references on other pages. Could you please explain why you find them to be an unreliable source? 11:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it for a variety of reasons, but I didn't have much time earlier so I gave you the most important one. For one, the RTF is a minority extremist group of (as I understand) largely reactionary anti-V2 Catholics, hardly a reliable source. Furthermore, it is hard to see how Evolution meets the criteria of being a theory of field of "endeavor that characterized in part or whole as pseudoscientific by various scientific, philosophic, journalistic or other sources." A theological essay does not meet those criteria. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Godless

Hi, thanks for this: --Uncle Ed 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

I saw my page linked to User:Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas where you accused me of being a sockpuppet.

1. I am not a sockpuppet. I'm not tagged as a sockpuppet and there is no clue, nor evidence, showing that i'm a sockpuppet.

   I did no vandalism nor sockpuppetry as demonstrated by my blog Vous Ai Compris !!

   The only connection with Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas is i've corrected a mistake i've noticed on his talk page.

The conclusion is your socketpuppet accusation is nothing but a clueless racist and abusive accusation based on the clueless "best guess" of another racist and abusive editor. Shame on you! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry, are you saying that the variety of sockpuppets which did show up to remove the tag are in fact yours? In either case, take it up with Kingboy who marked it as a puppet as such. Oh, and calling editors racist and abusive is unproductive and violates WP:NPA. If you continue at it, you will be blocked. JoshuaZ 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

And I'd bet you're right, too -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

MiloMein

This guy is frantically appealing his block. For reasons I've given on his talk page, my sockpuppet sense is tingling, and I wonder if you have any further evidence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a sock of banned user User:ParalelUni. See and for more. JoshuaZ 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

My email should now be verified. --Davril2020 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, you might want to make some comments at this RFAR in respect of the usual problems experienced with editing of articles on unaccredited private universities by students and staff. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I'll add in an evidence section sometime tonight (EST). JoshuaZ 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

im not a vandalist

About your corrections of my definition of Flying Spaghetti Monster

Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parodic religion! so obvious , but parodic it´s an adjective ,not a definition.

I think the main goal of this "religion" its that ultra religious people start to think more criticism about her/his own religions. And to do that, you must put on the same level. So, the definition "religion" as is, its quite accurate.

P.D: What its parodic? a man walking over the sea?

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no difference.

First, I didn't say you were a vandal, if I had thought your edit was vandalism, I would have used the rollback button. Second, the difference is partially one of intent-no one actually believes in the FSM, so in that sense it is a parody. JoshuaZ 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

new RfArb

Sorry to butt in, in your statement I think you meant RfArb, not RfA. thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Er, yes. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Your RfA

Hello! Hope you are feeling fine. I have answered your question in my RfA to the best of my ability. Hope that my answer proves to be satisfactory to you. --Siva1979 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to have some clarification about this question you posed to me: While your above answer does indicate an understanding of the AfD policy, is there anyway you can address the general concern raised at the previous RfA that this answer indicated a general lack(?) of policy knowledge? Should the question be: While your above answer does indicate an understanding of the AfD policy, is there anymore points in which you can address the general concern raised at the previous RfA that the answers you gave there indicated a general lack of policy knowledge? Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks! --Siva1979 05:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have answered your question to the best of my ability. --Siva1979 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer and Dominionism

You had written in part: "unsourced POV and not relevant to the matter at hand." What would be recognized by you as "sourced POV and relevant to the matter at hand?" Awinger48 14:47 EST, 17 August 2006.

The issue at hand was that you added the claims that "But Schaeffer should instead be known as one of the foremost leaders in the sanctity of life movement especially where it concerns abortion" this claim is POV because it talks about "should" be known as and is unsourced. If you had a source for the statement it would be sourced POV and still problematic. JoshuaZ 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was come up with something that is similar to what is written here without copying it: Schaeffer and the Christian Right. Is there someway of putting a link in the paragraph that would go to this section in the Francis Schaeffer entry? Then you would have the source you need and it probably would not be "problematic." Awinger48 19:45, 17 August 2006. (UTC)

Hmm, well that whole section is not sourced itself, but I suppose that's a problem for a different day. A comment to the affect that "There is some doubt that Schaeffer in fact has the dominionist views with which he is credited. See Schaeffer and the Christian Right." or something like that would probably be fine. JoshuaZ 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU SIR :-)) Awinger48 22:12, 17 August 2006. (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk removed what you authorized me to add as a revision saying, "(rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ). I put the addition back in. I added an explanation at User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Authorized_Revision_of_Dominionism_Entry referring him back to this talk session with you. I also added an explanation to the Dominionism discussion page at Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches. -- Awinger48 13:28, 18 August 2006. (UTC)

Siva 1979 RfA

I wondered if you'd noticed my suggestion. I think it could be useful if he was asked about some specific basic aspects, which he might be expected to know at this point, if you wished to pursue your initial doubts. Tyrenius 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd prefer not to quiz candidates. I'm currently working my way through Siva's contributions and trying to judge policy knowledge based on that. This has the advantage that it shows how he uses/understands policy in an actual working environment. JoshuaZ 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I presume your conclusions will appear on the RfA. Tyrenius 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott

Why? I've been blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system" by following policy and posting my 4th revert just outside the 24 hour. Yet Netscott gets away with going against a consensus and reverting 5 times in 8 hours!

Why? Can someone explain this? Deuterium 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to warn "vandals"- reply

It may be a good faith edit, but I could have sworn I used the rollback option, and not a warning. 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)~

That warning was done on the 15th, when he was doing his editing w/o any explaination as to his edit, in a way that made him look like a vandal. Check the history of the article. Rsm99833 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Three admins suggesting a block

You know you've got User:PinchasC and User:Bishonen suggesting Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs blocking with you being the only dissenting voice. Would you kindly take steps in accord with others? (→Netscott) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

With his report now sitting prominently on his user page obviously nothing's been prevented. (→Netscott) 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Add User:AYArktos to the list. (→Netscott) 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi Joshua. No problem. -- Szvest 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I have to agree with you on that call, Josh. It seemed rather odd that a protection was placed on it. Is FayssalF an actual admin? Was a request placed? Rsm99833 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal is an admin. As for why he choose to semi-protect, you should probably ask him. I don't think their was a request on the protection page though (it was getting vandalism from two editors a few hours ago, but nothing that severe). JoshuaZ 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Thought it would work itself out, considering how minor it was. Have a good week! Rsm99833 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail msg

I seem to have missed your message. Perhaps there was some kind of problem with my Gmail account while I was away; it's working fine now so you may want to resend (or feel free to use my talk page).

Thanks,

AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st

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 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I am closing this matter from my side and expect the same from others too.Thanks for unblocking though Holywarrior 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

I'd like to thank you JoshuaZ for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Misplaced Pages more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             —Xyrael / 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)