User talk:JoshuaZ

Talk Archive000

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.

Our RfAs

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blacklisting a webpage

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

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

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

guidelines/help needed

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

Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Historical_overview:

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

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

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

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

Blocking policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Spade RfC

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

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

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

Pianka controversy

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

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

Please be sure to use talk pages

Hey Joshua

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

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

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

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

Re: Pro-Lick

Hi Josh.

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

RFA

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

Good faith

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

Justforasecond 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serbian nationalist editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

My rFA

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

67.160.36.12

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

Thanks

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

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

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

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

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

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

EAS

JoshuaZ,

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

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

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

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

Bribery

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

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

Ethics in the Bible

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

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

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

Kusma's RfA

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

thanks for the support

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

AFD

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

Re: Kilo's rfa

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

stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this on my talk page just now:

DBAD

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

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

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

ProhibitOnions's RfA

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

RE: Your RfA

Responded. --Jay(Reply) 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e mp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]