User talk:JoshuaZ

Talk Archive000 Talk Archive001 Talk Archive002 Talk Archive003 Talk Archive004 Talk Archive005 Talk Archive006 Talk Archive007 Talk Archive008 Next archiving will occur around August 25

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)

Daniel Brandt

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)

Replied again. Prodego ^talk 00:50, 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

I'm curious as well. --B (talk) 13:15, 23 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

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

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)

The Jewish question

• Why do they ask it?
• What say you on this:
  Not to be confused with Jewish question (disambiguation), Jewish Question, or Final solution to the Jewish question.
  --Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Top Pies

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)

Deborah Jeane Palfrey

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, Durova^Charge! 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)

User:Advwar

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

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!

'Adnan Hoca' released on bail

One opposition member less Adnan Hoca followers seek Asilturk's help Smells like Susurluk

Ciminli Case Turns into a War

The professor who saved Adnan Hoca

Here is the document

The Ciller-Adnan Hocaci alliance

The Game of Dirty Politics

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: [2]. If it contains valuable information, we might use it as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:14, 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, Bastun^{BaStun 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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Temple Institute

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 Citrouilles^Tally-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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Nice threat/warning. Isn't Wikipedia such a pleasant place?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the tenor that these conversations have been going in, it seems to me like a reasonable thing to say. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, JoshuaZ! 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. Thanks! – sgeureka t•c 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

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

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

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

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

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)

Thanks for the kind words :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way - one of the most -err, "unfortunate"- edit summaries ever [3]? --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)

WP:ANI

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")."

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)

(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)

No. You again fail to understand that people can license something under multiple licenses. And even if this were an issue that would mean the original image would need to get deleted, not the cropped one. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:33, 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)

(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)

(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 [4] 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?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kashrut

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)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

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 [5] 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)

That is almost certainly not a good idea at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:42, 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.]

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.

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^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)

Disagreeing with you doesn't make something pointless distraction. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:42, 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)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Good point. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

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:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page 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,

Pharos

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)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

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)

Thomas Muthee

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)

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)

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. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)