Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:34, 16 July 2007

JoshuaZ is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002 Talk Archive003 Talk Archive004 Talk Archive005 Talk Archive006 Talk Archive007 Next archiving will occur around August 25

Six Day War

Can you help me avoid an edit war on this? I am simply trying to keep a section that existed during your lock on the article (Accusations of IDF killings of Egyptian prisoners of war). OpTioNiGhT 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds

Hi JoshuaZ. I just want to leave a minor note of appreciation for deciding to delete that rather unnecessary article. I know it's your job to do this kind of thing here, but it's a relief to see Misplaced Pages's policies prevail in the face of some very over-eager efforts to keep it. Spellcast 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice for removals at Fred Thompson

Two accounts want to remove/have been removing material that criticizes a presidential canidate. Sbowers3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Eseymour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) main activity is removing negative material and adding positive material to the article. Most recently they have even removed comments made by the subject.

My block on ConfuciusOrnis

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I agree that reverting the active discussions from an archive is not vandalism. In the case in question, ConfuciusOrnis reverted the whole of the archive, 140k, to the talk page, twice, and despite my clear explanations and warnings.

The active discussion had itself been moved to a user's talk page by ConfuciusOrnis. I also placed several comments on the page inviting users to move any active comments I had missed back from the archive, and provided them with difs linking to the page history in order to make this easier for them.

The "repetitive comment" is the simple fact that the talk page and Archive 12 now contain essentially the same material. That would have been avoided if the editors had taken my advise to selectively re-insert any live comments, rather than re-inserting the whole archive. The editors have re-inserted all the material from archive 12 into the talk page. It appears from talk:Creation science that they have decided that they will now selectively delete material they are not using. Perhaps this will have much the same result as my suggestion of re-inserting the material selectively from the archive, but of course leaves much of repetition in place, but perhaps it is a better solution for them.

I have set out in detail the actions I took on my talk page. I maintain that the block was appropriate. In any case, since it appears that those involved do not wish to take the issue further, I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your comments. Banno 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those "involved" are still deciding -- drop it or go for it. Not because anyone doubts that Banno was wrong, but because action is likely futile. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. Further action might prove futile. I just think Banno was wrong in this action, moving quickly without evidence. Orangemarlin 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design FAR

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi,

You asked for sourcing and I've added sourcing throughout. I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive

You should probably archive, Your talk page is getting fairly large to navigate through. Wikidudeman 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. JoshuaZ 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But you were getting so close to 200 items :( Guettarda 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Strawman Sock?

Possibility another Straw-man sock puppet has arisen in the mold of User:Chemist3456.....User:Science Solider. Has all the same signs, e.g. the user makes many spelling errors (i.e. "Solider"). If not a sock, bears watching. - LuckyLouie 16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Removing large parts of the article, no matter how ludicrous they might seem, is not helpful. As long as they are verifiable, I would argue that these sections should be left in the article to communicate clearly what this discipline advocates. Even if these practices are not particularly mainstream, they do exist and should be portrayed. --Filll 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please put back the mass of good stuff you deleted that you call star trek gobbledegook you don't know what you are doing! you are wholly unsuited to edit this article. Peter morrell 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" DRV

I was coming to that conclusion as well. I responded to the last two because they both involved direct attacks on myself, but decided it would be a good idea for me to shut up for a while thereafter. Hrafn42 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stopped responding to them, but it seems they haven't stopped the character-assassination - see User_talk:Hrafn42#Note_More_wild_accusations_from_User:Radiant.21. Hrafn42 11:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Conservapedia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Conservapedia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia. Thank you. -- Jreferee 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination) closed 16 minutes after my post above. Also, I messed up in the link to AfD#4 above. I've been working on a new technique to provide wikignome AfD notifications using Aka's Page History Stats Tool and it still has some kinks in it. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jreferee 00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Joshua's Day!

JoshuaZ has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian by Phaedriel, and so today is Joshua's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day today! Love, Phaedriel 03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Delivered by —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  due to Phaedriel's short abscence. A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Agreed; Happy Day JoshuaZ. :) Acalamari 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Draioicht na hOiche removal

You removed the entry about Draioicht na hOiche, as well as all artists' entries connected to it. I would be grateful if you could explain the reason. Draioicht