Misplaced Pages

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

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[REDACTED] 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 by BLOCKING A USER WHO WAS REVERTING VANDALISM UNDER THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF VANDALISM. pat8722 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'd like to understand what I've been threatened with, particularly since I have violated no[REDACTED] 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

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)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

RFA

It appears you voted on my RFA and weren't logged in. Just a heads up. Cheers --lightdarkness 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, How did you know that was me? JoshuaZ 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1337 hax! I checked the contribs of one of the other edits from the IP, saw you then edited with the edit summary "Whoops, wasn't logged in", and put 2 and 4 together to get 7. --lightdarkness 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Chuck...

Good move... Though I bet the discussion that would have followed would have been fun. :) Mikker 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

password

I guess that would be someone abusing the password reminder feature. There really should be a way to turn it off short of disabling e-mail. In the meantime there's really nothing that can be done. -- Curps 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your RfA

I would like to thank you for posting these questions for me on my RFA. I have answered all of them and hope that you would take a look at them as soon as possible. Any constructive comments from you will be greatly appreciated and taken into account. --Siva1979 16:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

YECs

Thanks for your comments on YEC. I have never been up on the topic of YEC and started studying it after a YEC sermon at my church (Southern Baptist). The pastor suggested I read a book by Ken Ham, which I did. Some of his stuff was right on, while others, I thought were way off. I am continuing to give feedback to my pastor. As I research and learn things, if I see a hole in Misplaced Pages of something I have learned, I try to add it.

Since I am new to both Misplaced Pages and the YEC discussion, if you see something that I said that is incorrect, unfactual, or you think is just POV, please feel free to let me know. Liberty4u 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. If you really want to know more about the topic I strongly suggest looking at the talkorigins archive FAQ and browsing some of the other stuff they have. JoshuaZ 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up

I've answered the questions that you posted here. Give them a look when you have the chance. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin

So wait...are you an admin?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Why did you think I was? JoshuaZ 01:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You handle a lot of disputes, ask questions, and hang out on the admin noticeboard. You're admin material. A lot of edits, a cool head, etc. Can I nominate you?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but not right now. Among other issues, I'm currently involved in the Agapetos Arbitration case, and I'd rather have that cleared up before I try to become an admin. That case will wrap up soon, I'm wouldn't mind a nomination around the end of the month though. JoshuaZ 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, just give me the word when the time comes and I'll do it.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

tb2's reporting

What would you like to see? Any ideas? joshbuddy 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it might make sense for it to see if the reported user is already listed on the page, and if so to not report them again. (although I'm not an admin, so my opinion on this really isn't very relevant). The current behavior could be slightly problematic if it reported A, reported B, reported A, then one admin deals with A and stops there, and then the next admin needs to go check through A again and note that A is already blocked. So having it not double up may be a slight timesaver. Just a thought though, nothing strong. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years

Hello,

I've added the reference to the deletion review of List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years you asked for.

Regards, Nick Mks 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. JoshuaZ 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. As far as the copyright is concerned, the image was created and released by a Wikipedian as a merge of 50 NASA images. The astronomical reason that eclipses occur less often at the poles is relatively simple, why the South Pole is even more discriminated is less obvious. For more information, I recommend and . If the article is recreated, I will include the explanation in it. Nick Mks 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the new version will be an excellent article. JoshuaZ 14:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi Joshua, LaRouche 2 doesn't mention user pages but says Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used to promote any individual or group (or words to that effect) and Cognition has been specifically joined to it. I'll take a look later to see whether the rest of the user page is promoting LaRouche's ideas, though I'm minded to leave the positive comments; it was the negative ones that were the most problematic. SlimVirgin 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a bit there, in particular "Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fighter of fascism, defender of the American System, architect of the original Bretton Woods system" "Mahathir bin Mohamad, had the courage to adopt the American System in Malaysia, to champion progress and industrial development" "Abraham Lincoln, great, hard-fought victor over the British monarchy's puppet, the Confederacy" are exactly the sort of statements that Larouche 2 tried to get rid of. So if the ruling includes user pages, these should go. JoshuaZ 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob

That guy attacked you because you reverted his vandalism, guess that means I gotta watch my own page!!

Thanks

Srikeit 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD 4 on the Game

There's no reason you should have noticed my earlier comment, or remembered that it was from me if you had. And certainly my new comment wasn't as helpful as it could have been. No hard feelings. --phh 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA

Hey Josh, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. I have made a note of the new user concern that you commented on during the discussion. I will do my best to correct the problem. If you have any further questions, leave me a note here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

I've answered your questions

I've answered the questions you posted on my RfA, thought I'd give you the heads up. Thank you for asking them, they were tough but good and I had fun answering them. : ) Thanks for interest and let me know if you need anything else. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your question...

Would you like me to answer on my RfA page, or would you like me to answer here. I think I could go into more detail here, as I don't really want to muck up the RfA page with so much writing. It's up to you really. Thanks. --LV 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No strong preference, although if you answer it here you may want to put a note there that you are answering it on my talk page (and by the way, if you think an answer to it will muck up the RfA page you should take a look at Tawker's final RfA). JoshuaZ 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think most questions can best be handled by directly asking the candidate themselves on their talk page, and Tawker's RfA was crazy. To be frank, my last RfA explains much of what happened in the past. To sum it up, I had an issue with a certain editor who tended to bring out the worst in people, namely, me. He did so, and I made a small personal attack on my user page. Then an Admin, Rhobite, scolded me and I attacked him childishly. I have apologized, and all parties have moved on. Gabrielsimon, the first editor, even supported me in my last sysop bid. Other than that, I've stayed pretty clean.

As to the handling of other contentious situations, I have dealt in some depth with Zephram Stark, a POV warrior with a cabinet full of socks. I have always treated him, and all his socks, with respect. I reprimand those that make personal attacks, including wikifriends that happened to cross the line. For a current sampling, you may want to see my dealings with Merecat at the Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I somewhat agreed with him on his RfC, but am fair and tried to nudge him in the right direction. You may also want to see my handling of User:Thewolfstar.

I have tended to haunt the American politics articles a bit, so I am no stranger to heated debate. I just try and keep things light and try to remind people, while remembering myself, what our purpose is here. I hope I have answered your question. For further info, you can see my contribs. See ya. --LV 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler notice

I took it off because it seemed really, really out of place. By all means put it back, it's no big deal :) Proto||type 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lesser degrees

How bout stating where they do come from, then? Talking about what people don't have is rarely acceptable, even if the subject is as shady as Cornuke. Try to keep it encyclopaedic and NPOV. ℬastique▼♥♑ 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If they claim expertise in an area, especially when proposing controversial hypotheses, shouldn't their lack of credentials be identified? David D. (Talk) 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Especially when they claim to have a "doctorate" (unaccredited) without the merits of a undergraduate degree. Arbusto 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

vandal i just blocked . . .

yes, i was just looking at the block log when i got your message, and had decided to kick it up to a full week given the incessant vandalism and lack of any constructive edits. So i've done that. cheers --Heah? 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rasputin

Well done for removing the Oppose. I have to say that I unconditionally support this one, but nobody can expect to agree on everything :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Stargate project

Hi, I have noticed that you have been making lots of edits on Stargate related pages, however, your name was not on the list of participants in the stargate project. You are more active in stargate on WP than some people who are on the list. I thought you might want to join the project. Tobyk777 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, whether you join or not, for your work in stargate I am giving you an award.

Thanks, I will add a copy of the barnstar to my barnstar page and will sign up on the project page. JoshuaZ 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

my RFA

Regarding your recent vote switch on my RFA, I've clarified my position underneath the oppose votes. For simplicity's sake, I'll copy it over here as well: "For that, please read further to the next paragraph stating "Anons do some good on wikipedia, especially when it comes to little things like capitalizing, punctuation etc. You may not think it's much, but it kills the sense of "wow this is a real encyclopedia" when you read poor english, with no punctuation and bad spelling. Anons do a lot of work fixing that, and I appreciate that. I'm always willing to work with any anon that shows me the same respect back.", as well as reading "As a counter to that: some articles just, for some reason, attract all the GOOD anons." and "Still, that, combined with an article I've created, BF2Combat.net which is maintained mostly by anons, gives me hope." The user article was structured in a multi paragraph style, where I present an argument, and follow it with a counter argument. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)"

My opinion regarding anonymous acounts is this: They should register. I understand the editors who are anons out of convenience or security reasons (no time to log in, or a public/shared computer so no desire to log in), but still, excluding bot style vandals, the majority of simple vandalism and test reverts on[REDACTED] come from anonymous IP's, and I strongly feel that if registration were required to edit the project, it would only be excluding the vandals who get bored in school and vandalize wikipedia, or come across an article through google and vandalize it because it's there and they've never heard of an editable encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Attribution:

better articles are our goal, not better policies

None needed. Thanks for all the good you do around here. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can have it for free if you can figure out which is correct: "Better articles is our goal" or "Better articles are our goals". That'll prove your worth as an editor. -W.

Maybe I should just attribute it you as you put it in the edit summary and then claim I was only quoting when the grammar police show up. I'm pretty sure "better articles are" since in English number is decided by the subject not the predicact nominative. JoshuaZ 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, "better articles" might be a collective noun. Now I'm not sure. Groan. JoshuaZ 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably will be different in AE and BE, like "team". Guettarda 06:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

Hi, you may want to rv back to just the deletin review notice and protect the page. Certain users seem to think the article should be up now while the deletion review is ongoing. My understanding of policy suggests that it should not. JoshuaZ 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not an admin (though I'm flattered that I've managed to fool you) but I think allowing the article to stand while the DRV runs is actually a better idea, since the deletion was out of process. If the DRV decides the deletion was actually the right decision, which seems unlikely, it can be deleted then.-Polotet 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hi. I've been noticing that we seem to share a lot of the same interests so I was wondering if you would like to lend a hand over on Cold Fusion. This used to be a listed article but it has since degenerated after being abandoned by skeptics. I would appreciate your cool head and words of wisdom is convicing the other editors to make the article something other than a propaganda piece. Yours sincerely, Jefffire 09:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but my knowledge of the subject is very poor, so I don't know how much assistance I'll be. JoshuaZ 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm managed to impliment a lot of changes so it's not as bad as before. The article Cold fusion controversy is still in pretty bad state. Jefffire 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My friend Séamus was working in the same lab as Fleischmann in 1989, he did some of the control algorithms for the reaction. He's now professor of bio- and electro-sensors at Cranfield University. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC comment

I felt it was borderline fair comment, but with hindsight you're probably right. I'll go back and remove it. SlimVirgin 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

I agree with what you are doing, reverting those claims in the September 11, 2001 attacks article, but I recommend you to avoid the article for the rest of the day as you are close to WP:3RR as you do got 3 non-vandalism reverts in the article in like a six hour period. Thanks Jaranda 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of that, I was actually planning on avoiding the article for at least 24 hours before I touch it again. JoshuaZ 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game

I was hoping common sense would prevail and the consensus of the AfD would be that WP:V cannot be voted out by an AfD, but my hopes were dashed, and therefore policy has to be followed, regardless of a vote which violates policy. I was hoping that whichever admin closed it would realize that the only possible result, regardless of the AfD "vote", was deletion because of WP:V. User:Zoe| 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that you intended to delete it regardless of any outcome or discussion in the AfD? JoshuaZ 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hoped that the closing admin would do the right thing, but since that didn't happen, deletion was the only correct result. User:Zoe| 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So the possibility that there was disagreement over whether or not the Belgian source was sufficient was irrelevant?

Most definitely. 1-It's a Dutch language article which requires you to register. 2-The translation was problematic. 3-The supposed article doesn't cite its own sources. User:Zoe| 04:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... since when do newspapers EVER cite their sources? There's a picture of article anyways -- if you had taken the time to read or search the extensive discussion page, you would have seen it. The translation's fallibility is another story. What made/makes you think so? brabblebrex 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you didn't discuss this with Prodego why?

Would it have led to Prodego changing his/her decision? User:Zoe| 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And your repeated badgering of me is relevant because ...? User:Zoe| 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha Kernow 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kernow, What point are you trying to make? JoshuaZ 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just joking. Your and Zoe's attitudes to Misplaced Pages are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum. It makes an amusing read. Kernow 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is what is going on. I think the issue is not about "tolerance" more unilateralism (and possibly my lack of understanding Zoe's rationale for her unilateralism). JoshuaZ 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Village pump

You have seen my proposal on WP:RS. Could you please tell me what the next step would be if I wanted to change the policy? My list of reliable sources which should be listed is very concise: PubMed, Cochrane collaboration, HONcode and all articles listed in these. But I really don't know what to do about it now. ackoz 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would start a discussion on the talk page for WP:RS and make a note with a new header that on the village pump that a discussion on that topic is occuring there. JoshuaZ 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:HealthDisclaimer

Hello JoshuaZ : ) Excellent job spotting this template and bringing it to Tfd. The user that made it was well intentioned but we don't need any ambiguity here. regards, FloNight 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Irony, hypocrisy

"On adverbs: Most adverbs should be shot on sight." --JoshuaZ on his user page

"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)" --From the top of this page (adverb bolded for easy spotting)

Just thought I'd be a dick and point that out. I think that the adverb you elected to use is the worst in existence. Have a nice day! brabblebrex 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah, yeah. That rule refers to in article space and stuff that I'm going to bother doing drafts of. In talk space I'm really layed back and even end sentences with prepositions. JoshuaZ 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats vote stacking?

Hi, you said that my proposal is close to vote stacking. What is vote stacking? Tobyk777 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking is deliberately organizing a group of Wikipedians to all vote one way on a specific matter (examples where this problem commonly occurs are Adminship requests and WP:AfD). In general such behavior is considered to be possibly disruptive, unproductive and generally frowned upon. JoshuaZ 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with vote stacking. It's like campangining, just on a smaller scale. Tobyk777 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its precisely identical to campaigning, and campaigning on the wiki is frowned upon since it minimizes actual discussion of the matter at hand and measures more who can get-out-the-vote better rather than what the actual consensus is. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. JoshuaZ 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, User:JedRothwell has been blocked for 24 hours. ~MDD4696 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left JedRothwell and Jefffire messages on their talk pages asking what the dispute was about (I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the problem is). If you have any additional commentary, I'd like to hear it too. On the one hand, we can't have JedRothwell being disruptive, but on the other, I'd like to try and figure out if he has a valid point. Thanks. ~MDD4696 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is correct here. Jed has been POV-pushing on the article, the section of the paragraph he wants to add is not relevant. To be blunt, Jed insists that every section give the last word to the cold fusion advocates even if he has to find an only tangentially related statement to stick in. JoshuaZ 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Malthusians re Eric Pianka

Thanks for your interest on the matter of Malthusians. I do think that Eric Pianka certainly fits like a hand to a glove with this doctorine. Essentially it boils down to population control and the idea that humans are no better than animals and should be culled accordingly. There is certainly much science to argue for this, but the idea is morrally repugnant as it advocates massive genocide using the excuse that humans are destroying the planet. This is certainly at odds with the creationists who believe that human life is special and certainly above that of the animals or vegetation of the planet. They argue that science is reductionist in that it only deals with what can be measured by repeatable experiments, so it has no validity in matters of ethics.

The history of Malthusians is long and complex and stretches far further than the man who is credited for this doctrine. You might be interested in looking at the involvement of the British Royal Society and Lindon LaRouche’s EIR is probably the best researched source of information on its history.

This link has a collection of articles from EIR featuring this

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/contents.htm#environ

e.g. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/malthsay.htm

Ok, for starters, articles on personal websites are not reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Second of all, this has to be one of the most convoluted definitions of malthusianism I have ever heard. It isn't at all clear to me what Malthusianism has to do with creationism or a reductionist viewpoint, or one's ethical system at all. If these concerns are addressed, it might possibly make sense to call Pianka a malthusian, but no time before that. JoshuaZ 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Malthusian was used with reference to his political stance on population reduction and a disregard for human life, which is an ethical subject. It does not have anything directly to do with creationism except that the label was applied to Forrest Mims his accuser.

I was just trying to make the issue a little clearer for your benefit. The links I provided were also for your benefit in order to show you the history of the subject so you would not think I was making it up or something. The site is a reprint of EIR articles and EIR is a long establish political publication. I could simply use the reference as in the issue number and author but the link was provided to help you so you don't need to go and buy the magazine back issue to check it. I appreciate it is not possible for you to be an expert in every subject but I hope this shows you that the alteration I made has grounding in published works of credibility.

The links you provided are to articles from The American Almanac, a Larouchian newspaper(as I understand it), not a reliable source. You are getting closer to what a reasonable definition of Malthusian might be, but that's 1) not what the word means and 2) you meaning doesn't support his claim. JoshuaZ 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ba an Admin

Hi, I have been coming across you alot lately, at random times. (partialy because we are both active inn stargate) You are the most active wikipedian I know of. You are constantly voting on FAc and AFD and are very active on RFA. I think that you surely have enough edits to become an admin and have as clear of an understanding of wiki policy as anyone. You seem to know everything about wikipedia, even obscure stuff, like vote stacking. Youve helped so many people become admins, why not become an admin yourself? You are more than qualified. Tobyk777 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. People have made the comment before. Right now, I'm not yet running because I feel I have enough experience (in particular, I still have very little experience with the images and templates), and I'm also peripherally involved in an arbitration case which I'd like to finish before I run so there isn't an cloud over me. I suspect I will be running soon, in about a week or two. JoshuaZ 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As a word of caution though, some might be weary of supporting an RfA for you due to your short tenure so far at Misplaced Pages. joturner 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I unfortunately have a slight impatient streak(which doesn't go well with waiting for adminship when one has some heavily vandalized pages in ones watchlist (like Evolution and God). Also, as far as I can tell, after e months, the number of users who object to time related concerns drops off fast (this impression is simply based on looking at the last month or so of RfAs). JoshuaZ 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Butting in, you may want to write some more articles before then because you may face inevitable questions about whether you are a career bureaucrat??ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary should be "butt in"ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I know. This coming week is actually reading week before exams, i.e. procrastination week, so I have a few articles I've been meaning to start and/or drastically improve. That's really incidental to adminship though. I'm not going to change my editing patterns just to look good for the RfAs. "career bureaucrat" also seems like an odd term in this context, and I think I get the idea, but not completely sure (I'm also shocked how many people have my user page on their watchlists). JoshuaZ 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when the time is right, I will nominate / support you for sure. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Ikiroid called dibs on nominating me, would you mind doing a joint nomination with Ikiroid when the time comes? JoshuaZ 13:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you do a joint nomination? Like, 2 people give their reasons for nomination, instead of one?--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the RfA rules and I can't find anything that says one can't. I also don't see any reason why one shouldn't be able to. There might be an objection if one had say 10 people do a joint nomination due to it basically looking like vote stacking, but beyond that I can't think of any reasonable objections. I wouldn't be surprised if it had been done before, but a quick search doesn't turn up any obvious examples. JoshuaZ 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Co-nom's do occur on occasion; there haven't been too many recently but Lightdarkness' happened a couple of weeks ago. ~ PseudoSudo 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Embryology

Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date. I can see from you user page that you do not like to discuss pseudoscience but I can assure you that this topic isn't, so I assume that I can talk to you freely about it.

This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.

Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.

What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.

So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this 💕 as current and relevant as possible. And since science is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.

thanks

Hmm, looking over the section again, it looks like you edit wasn't what it initially appeared although it was slightly problematic (and yes, I agree the current version has problems) I suggest you take it to the evidence for evolution talk page and hammer it out there with the other editors. JoshuaZ 07:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 24th

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.

Please don't go around accusing me of a being a sockpuppet

I don't appreciate your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of RabinicLawyer simply because I side with him on the Somethingawful articles. I would appreciate if you retracted your sockpuppet comments. --TrollHistorian 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD voting record makes it clear that you are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Rabinic. This is unacceptable behavior. Heck, I agree with you about a lot of the SA-cruft. That doesn't make meatpuppeting acceptable. Considering that you, Rabinic, et al. have done almost nothing but vote for deletion on SA related articles, I suggest you stop vote stacking and make a few productive edits. JoshuaZ 01:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made productive edits but I also feel that Misplaced Pages can be better served by being more conservative about what is hosted on Misplaced Pages. I feel the value I can add to Misplaced Pages is related to what gets removed or cleaned up rather than what I add myself. How are the goons not meat puppets? Are they voting objectively, because I am. --TrollHistorian 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet the only AfDs you seem to vote on are those RabinicLawyer nominates. Right. (Also, calling voters you don't like "goons" is not a good thing, please see WP:NPA), Even if someone else is votestacking (of which I see no evidence), that hardly justifies votestacking in return. Furthermore, in many of the AfDs you voted right after RabinicLawyer nominated them, so you can make no claims that stacking was occuring by others. JoshuaZ 02:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the somethingawful page you will understand that "Goon" is the title that Something Awful forum users have given themselves. Sorry if I offended you by suggesting they were actually thugs. I don't think you understand this. I am not doing RabinicLawyer any favors. I simply agree with him (except on Green Lighting). --TrollHistorian 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to try to get your story straight, its a bit odd to use as a defense "We;re not meatpuppets!" and "But they're doing it also" I note actually you didn't vote to keep the green lighting hoax, you simply didn't vote there at all. Interesting. JoshuaZ 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note (after little cleanup)

Joshua, I hope you understand that in these first minutes of my adminship I am still learning the ropes. I promise to overblock later whoever I underblocked now. Besides, my priority was to post a bunch of Thank-you notes... Cheers! ←Humus sapiens 05:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm confused. What are you refering to? JoshuaZ 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoax tagger

Jeesh, I'd just finished filling out a 3RR (which is a pain). Oh well, at least he's blocked. Thanks for helping! OhNoitsJamie 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused I am. I thought you were an admin, why didn't you block him yourself? JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, my thanks as well. I'm pretty new around here and wasn't sure how anti-vandalism reverts related to 3RR, but I was keeping an eye on things. Cheers! - FlyingOrca 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:72.140.99.7

Why did you add that new warning? My warning occured after the vandalism had stopped anyways. JoshuaZ 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You really can't block someone unless they first get something more serious than {{test}} --rogerd 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. What does that have to do with this? He had stopped vandalzing,been given a warning and then an hour later you added another warning jumping two levels in the test-tree? JoshuaZ 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it, then revert it. --rogerd 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why FF Coppola should be impaled

that word adds emphasis. I feel it is needed because too many people buy what I regard as bunk about how that movie is the truest to Bram Stoker's novel ever made. It may be closer in letter than most "dracula" movies made, but is so far from the spirit of the original I feel the differences and betrayals are need to be emphasised. We may discuss this more at length if you wish, or I may add a note on the article's talk page. --Svartalf 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: The Game

I will quite happily find one - Give me a week or so, though, I'll need to set up a meeting with the tutor!HawkerTyphoon 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Which sources are missing in "Controversy"?

Which sections in http://en.wikipedia.org/Cold_fusion_controversy are not sourced? Please be specific. --JedRothwell 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)