User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First Archiving will occur next weekend.

Welcome!

Hello, JoshuaZ/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate that, although we have had difference of opinions in editing, that I appreciate your |Meatball:DefendEachOther. It was appreciated. agapetos_angel 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Socrates

Actually those were just the things I could find among the first few hits by googling Sarfati + Socrates. I've seen the allegation elsewhere before. Guettarda 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I really need to learn to use google more effectively. JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarfati and 220;*

Thanks for handling that revert with 220.*. (He has actually done it 4 times in the last few hours, if he does it again, I'm going to call 3rv on him). JoshuaZ 04:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but no problem. :) --Rory096 04:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (I revert way too much, I should take a wikibreak)

Wiki4Christ

It's coo, there are three admins on the situation. Both are now blocked. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks about that. JoshuaZ 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Safarti

Eek! It seems like there's a lot of history with this. Maybe I'll just leave the article alone for a few weeks and let the current editors hash it out. Thanks for the heads-up. Ashmoo 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the edits you were doing were pretty close to what the consensus edits are turning out to be. In any case, your input is always welcome. JoshuaZ 07:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

radiohalos

Thanks for your input. The primary source for on the research to which I was referring is the book: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Volume 2. I used the Creation wiki reference because it was instantly available for free where getting the book would take time and money.

If the only complaint had been the reference, then I would try again but the fact that the second reversion simply labeled it POV without qualification. I suspect that anything I would do to correct this out of date reference or any of the numerous other errors on the page, would just be removed, so it would be a waste of my time to even try.

cpcjr

I recommend discussing it on the talk page. If it can be well referenced it might be reasonable to put in. JoshuaZ 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

New sock

Actually, you pointed him out to me. I just reverted his edits. Curps blocked him. moink 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Scarfati Science Section

When you say a final version of that section, do you mean my latest draft that SlimVirgin thought a big improvement before Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute discussion moved to qualifications? It's a draft for development, preferably by those who know more than I do about all this, and while it would be easy to put together some of the other bits I've collected to fill it out a little, it would be nice to find out if the various parties are content before pushing it further for community discussion. ...dave souza, talk 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm content with most of what you had. I was hoping that if it could all be down together it might become apparent what, if any, other changes/additions needed to be done. JoshuaZ 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles Anderson College

If you have some time, we can use a few more minds back over at the Hyles Anderson College article. Arbusto 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Joshua

I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. Cheers PiCo 12:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Morris' death

How did you find that he died? --Juicy Juicy 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Its on a few of the major creationist websites, see for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp JoshuaZ 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben Franklin and Death

I've redone the section and made an appeal to Ben. Tell me what you think on the Talk Page of Death.--ikiroid | (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert for Alchemy

Well, I was just looking at it..... and it shouldn't be said that it cannot be done in the first place, if it says that elsewhere...... according to modern science, you have nanotechnology. That can do the trick. It's not alchemy per se, but it is transmuting valuless things into valuable things.

KV 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Can you give more detail as to what you mean? JoshuaZ 05:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for letting me know; I wasn't watching the activity on that page. Let me know if the problem returns. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Thanks for letting me know that my e-mail was disabled. I'm not sure how this happened. It used to work, but I guess it got disabled somehow with the recent changes to e-mail. Anyway, it should be enabled now so please try again. If that doesn't work, you can also find my address on my home page. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

What were you wanting to delete? a category? article? template? tell me which and ill try to help you out with it. Discordance 23:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to delete Category:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. JoshuaZ 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to go to WP:CFD. If you need any more help with it post on my talk page, she definately doesnt merit a category. Discordance 00:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Thanks for the tip. JoshuaZ 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Evolution for deletion

I'm leaning more on the side of vandalism. I mean, come on, how man featured articles have been listed for deletion? Nonetheless, I'll assume good faith. As you said, it shouldn't last long. --Jay(Reply) 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA resequncer

It does refrence meterial. The episodes themselves are refrenced. also, i linked to another article on the machine. Someone was kind enough to dlete the link. Tobyk777 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• The gateworld Omnipedia entry is titled "GENETIC MANIPULATION DEVICE" under technology

Three forms of mathematical induction

This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.

It was not intended to teach mathematical induction. It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.

What I see is (mostly) a bunch of non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion, and seeing that

• It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and

• The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction.

And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including

• Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.

• Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.

• An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that. It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.

Therefore, I invite those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.

(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Phil Plait book

There are excellent reasons to remove the Plait book as a UFO book that have nothing to do with POV. Plait's book is not about UFO's. It's about what he thinks are misconceptions that have some relation to astronomy. There is one chapter on UFOs. OK, but the problem is the two items already cited from this chapter turn out to be phony arguments, things that Plait made up. They're not supported by the actual literature or scientific studies.

Plait claimed that amateur astronomers literally never report UFOs. Where did he get that--a scientific study perhaps? No, he made it up. Actual surveys show that astronomers, amateur and professional, have sighted UFOs in roughly the same proportions as the general public. In a 1969 survey, 22% of the sample reported UFOs, actually greater than the population has a whole. Surveys of professionals reveal about 5-10% reporting UFOs. The other made up fact cited was Plait's statement that Venus accounted for a majority of UFO reports. Actual exhaustive scientific studies put it at more like 10-20%. No study has ever come remotely near Plait's >50% number.

Thus Plait's UFO "facts" are fabricated and misinformation. Wiki is an encyclopedia. Why should such a deeply flawed, erroneous book be used as a reference? Let's compile a GOOD list of UFO references. There are infinitely better UFO reference books out there. E.g., a good skeptical look at UFO misidentification is Allan Hendry's "UFO Handbook", a detailed statistical look at over 1300 cases personally investigated by Hendry for CUFOS.

BTW, while I deleted Plait's book over on the UFO article, it was moved over to the new IFO article where his erroneous Venus "fact" is again cited (as it was in the UFO article). Plait's statement is then contrasted with what actual studies show. This is an appropriate use of the reference. Dr Fil 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Earth creationism

Not sure you achieved what you were intending over there - maybe you should double check (I'm not sure your edit summary matches your edit, which makes me wonder if you made the revert you intended). Guettarda 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. That wasn't what I intended. Thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was already baffled

I was already baffled, I can see that there is an increased interest, that is why I asked for a citation. And if no citation, I would have removed it in a few days. :-) --KimvdLinde 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the subject it would have been very hard to find a decent citation. Its horribly POV no matter what, in that while under some small circumstances "yom" can mean other time periods, there is no evidence it does in this case and so to claim that this is somehow a better textual interpretation, or that these views are gaining is highly POV. JoshuaZ 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not know about that other part, so I did not tough that. The fact was only at the last piece. i revert when I am sure, not when I doubt. (I rather work on getting a good Natural selection page. :-( --KimvdLinde 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Tyranny

Could you please review the older version Judicial tyranny article, which I have reinstated in response to the deletion nomination, which I believe resolves the objections to the current, quite inappropriate, article. Judge Magney 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Thank you. I was trying out a new word?  :) Actually, I did one of the things I'm best at -- I "fat-fingered" it. Thanks again. Jim62sch 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfect number

Maybe what you're saying is true. Is there any page in wikipedia that people like me can learn stuffs that you're referring to? WAREL 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd look on the pages about the Halting problem and on Godel's theorem, they may have relevant details. May also be discusson the page for Hilbert's 10 problem. JoshuaZ 04:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does Godel's theorem have to do with Odd Perfect Numbers? WAREL 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thet matter you were discussing about undecidability is related to certain general theorems about undecidability, to the relevant algorithmic issues might be discussed there(to be honest, I haven't looked at the page). JoshuaZ 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what wikipedia pages say,what exactly does Godel's theorem have to do with Odd Perfect Numbers? WAREL 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not much, but the matter at hand is a general property related to undecidability. The property at hand applies to pretty much any problem in some form. JoshuaZ 17:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AA RfAr

Thanks, I'd been looking at it off and on. Been meaning to reply to Durova's slings and arrows, in fact. Alai 20:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:typo -- thanks! Jim62sch 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean you never heard of the Ausralians?  :) Thanks. Jim62sch 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Where? (Sorry, I can't figure out where). Thanks (Feel free to email me). Guettarda 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The diff is here: [1]

JoshuaZ 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you said. One of these days I need to figure out that whole "reading comprehension" thingy. Guettarda 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User: 71.15.136.168

Your answer was better than mine there. It might make sense to make yours into a template. JoshuaZ 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to compliment you on your quick reply! I almost didn't post mine, since your reply said the same thing, but figured it couldn't hurt. I wonder what the user will think, with two replies in as many minutes. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Centimet(re|er)

Yeah, I'd be in the "weakly" camp myself. The current recreation was a mess, though: decategorised, reversing the spelling of the parent article, and pointless inclusion of "howto"(!) material. Alai 07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Triple Y

Josh, I wasn't criticizing you, I just noted that you reverted 33% of YYY's edits on the one article. People are getting awfulling jumpy these days, and it's not even a full moon.  :) Maybe we all need a Wikibreak (although the withdrawal symptoms probably bite) -- especially if it looks like I'm criticizing you. Jim62sch 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know -- maybe I'm getting too sensitive. Many of us may need a week in Jamaica to chill out. Sorry. Jim62sch 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Arb

Ok, I've "removed" the second and fourth bits of evidence for now - I really don't have the time or the energy to sniff them out. I am not looking forward to Ben's case either - there are actually two cases on the RFAr page that I should be posting evidence to :( Guettarda 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It may make sense to communicate this to Felonious since he seems to put a lot of time into RfAs, maybe he could do those sectins. JoshuaZ 06:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll read this page or mine (I know he watches both) because I'm off to bed. Guettarda 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Hi Joshua! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a liar?

WarriorScribe clearly shows in this link that he has absolutely no intention of making a statement. Please revert your change on the RFA page. --Ben 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't call you a liar, I said you shouldn't put words in other peoples mouths. Generally, that doesn't necessarily involved bad faith, whereas lying presumably does. Incidentally, how would you interpret WarriorScribes comment that "However, if the members of the site admin are willing to waste their time with this, and declare it a valid ArbCom issue, I'll respond as time permits, and cooperate fully"? JoshuaZ 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As "I refuse to comment unless the RfAr is accepted." --Ben 23:08, 22 March 2006

(UTC)

See, now we have an example of putting words in someone's mouth that isn't necessarily lying. Warrior didn't say that, that is your interpretation of his statement, and it is unecessary and unproductive for you to put that interpretation into his section as if he said it. JoshuaZ 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask him yourself.--Ben 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not write, "I refuse to comment unless the RfAr is accepted," nor was that what I meant. That's official and it is not subject to debate. I do find it amusing that this little fellow made so much noise about others making Wiki a "battleground," especially since I really haven't participated that much, lately. Yet, that seems to be his motivation. It would be more entertaining if it wasn't so pathetic. - WarriorScribe 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:The Game

Perhaps, but note that recreation of a validly deleted article, as this one was, can be speedy deleted, and if it happens enough times, it can be protected. However, thanks, and happy editing!--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to criticise the actions of an admin simply because of their being just that? Please explain.

No, but terms like "dictatorial" generally violate WP:CIVIL. That would apply to any user, not just an admin. JoshuaZ 03:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

Hi again. I just wanted to say that, despite the fact that you disagreed with my decision, you stuck up for me when I was accused of being "dictatorial" and such- that shows excellent character. In looking at your contributions, you have lots of good edits and very good handling of conflict. So thank you, and keep up the good work- You may be closing AfDs someday yourself :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Consensus

Seriously tho, do you know what consensus means? [2]. Sam Spade 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you don't like the current version. Most of the editors do. We are attempting to arrive at a compromise. That doesn't change the fact that the draft you RVed is the current consensus from almost all the editors. JoshuaZ 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, note that Knowledge Seeker just RVed your rv with the summary "change intro; appears only one editor supporting it." Now, please calm down and help us get a version that satisifies everyone. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, there are many more editors who favor this version, please lets not get into a revert war.

...he said, continuing to edit war. — goethean ॐ 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to edit again, not to worry. I edited twice, once rving your version and once rving Sam's version. It seems from the current editing that there is a strong consensus against either version. (and yes, I am guilty of some hypocrisy here)JoshuaZ 00:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is no consensus any which way about any of the versions. The only one which could even try to claim consensus is the old FA version (based on its historical consensus). The version you are reverting to has been contested every day since its introduction, by several editors. To be a good wikipedian (as I'm sure you will be), its important to understand consensus. Sam Spade 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ID Teach or State

Joshua, I could not see the consensus on the current ID talk page. I assume it's in the archives. Is it possible to search in them, or do I have to open each one and do a Ctrl+F? I agree that "stating" something to a class is a part of teaching. My only concern is that a newbie reading the sentence will get the wrong impression. ^rossnixon 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any more effective way to search them, but I'm probably not the person to ask since I'm still a fairly new Wikipedian. JoshuaZ 02:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA accusation

Joshua, I'm going to assume this was a mistake. Your evidence on the RfA falsely accuses Agapetos also so intimate familiarity with Sarfati's chess rating supported by a diff [3] that does not illustrate an edit by me, but rather the removal of that rating information by 220* (contrary to your claims of supposed self-promotion). David Cannon added that rating [4]. Furthermore, that information [5] is easily obtainable from the FIDE website [6] search, and does not indicate any 'intimate familiarity'. Would you please review this and make the approprate changes? (BTW, your link [7] is broken) agapetos_angel 04:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stricken that out and removed the broken link (since I can't seem to get it to work). Thanks for the heads up. JoshuaZ 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you agapetos_angel 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

Thanks for the defense on my RfA. Would you mind moving the comment up to directly beneath MONGO's comment and indenting it so that it isn't overshadowed in the comments section. Otherwise, I'm going to make a similar (and utter the same sentiments) comment myself. Pepsidrinka 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. JoshuaZ 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Recapitulation Theory

I realize that creationists cite the textbooks older than 1920 as evidence, but the point of the paragraph that I inserted is that there are a lot of modern textbooks that actually say these things. For example, every teacher and textbook that I've encountered since grade school? My psychology professor? I linked the Google search, because many of those search results cite textbooks that make this mistake. I'm abroad right now and don't have access to my old textbooks, so I can't give you firm citations. I think it's important to note that some ignorant U.S. science educators are just giving fuel to Creationists by supporting recapitulation theory. This is especially a problem in grade school. Just because you haven't encountered this problem doesn't mean that it's nonexistant. Since you keep reverting, I'll leave it up to you whether you want to actually do some research and re-include my paragraph. Cheers, 129.12.228.161 11:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your claim and some other evidence I have seen, I am going to put your paragraph back in provisionally. JoshuaZ 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

--Fasten 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sternberg

There was already a reference present from Panda's Thumb. I hadn't realized this was deprecated. Sorry about that. Wesley R. Elsberry 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I have replied to your question now, I hope you find it ok. _→AzaToth 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Robin Boyd

Joshua, thanks for your note about Robin Boyd. Although I didn't find any other major awards, I've expanded his article a bit to provide addl context. Cheers! --Lockley 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA

File:Stick insect02.jpg

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 05:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, although Shanel did it at the exact same time. Makemi 05:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2's warning

Hmm, it appears to have found an edit of theirs to be vandalism but someone beat it to the revert, the bots "spawn both the warn and revert at the same time" kicked in and hence the warning. -- Tawker 06:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists that combine categories

On the AfD for List of Jewish American criminals and victims you wrote Comment Does anyone think that this sort of list is substantially different from List of Jewish actors and actresses? If so, I'd like to understand exactly why.

I don't know if you're aware that in January 06 there was extensive discussion of the issue of lists that try and combine a person's ethnic or religious affiliation with something completely unrelated to that. The extreme example discussed at some length there was List of Methodist dentists. I missed that discussion, but having looked through it recently as I've watch the AfD comments I'm really disappointed that the community did not come to an acceptable consensus on the question.

I see a difference between the list you cite and the list under discussion primarily because the 'criminals and victims' is so contentious and potentially offensive. We've seen the comments from User: GorillazFanAdam. While I can see some way in which a list of people who were victims because they were Jewish (gay, missionaries) could have merit (but I'm not sure it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia), I cannot see how a list of criminals could have the same merit. To act in a manner that is criminal is effectively a declaration that the faith into which you were born, or claim by conversion, is effectively a sham. So I am against the list of criminals and victims remaining not only because it not doing anything of value in the context of an encyclopedia but because it is potentially offensive.

As for the list of actors, I am against their creation since they do not seem to have encyclopedic value. Such a list combines two aspects of a person's life that do not inherently have value. A list of Jewish scholars of Christianity, for example, might be a very interesting list. There is a category combination that i see has genuine value. It was said that a List of Islamicist athletes has values because such athletes choose to recognise aspects of the Koran in the way that they compete (women wearing a burka [spelling?] for example).

So I've come to the position that both lists you mention are unencyclopedic, but was willing to accept the view of a majority that a List of Jewish actors and actresses was something I can put up with. A List of Jewish American criminals and victims is too contentious to remain. JGF Wilks 08:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While that makes some sense, I don't think the contentious nature of a list should have much bearing on whether it stays or not. I can understand an argument that is is not encylopedic, but we seem to have a consensus to accept far less encyclopedic lists, like lists of pokemon or lists of stargate episodes. I would therefore argue that whether a list is "interesting" has more bearing under the current consensus then its strict encyclopedic value. Also, the claim that "To act in a manner that is criminal is effectively a declaration that the faith into which you were born, or claim by conversion, is effectively a sham" has to important problems. First, not all the criminals on the list necessarily thought they were going against their religion, for example Jonathan Pollard(I would argue that violated the halachah of dina d'malchut dina (which says essentially to follow the laws of the land in which one lives)). Second, we already have a category specifically of religious scandals, which already has the same sort of implication. 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the speedy revert with the vandalism on my user page. --Scot^t 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No harm intended

I did not intentionally replace an article with blank space. That might be considered vandalism by a naive reader, but it might be considered a techical error by an informed anaylyst. I was attempting to edit the top end of a story and some sort of browser glitch resulted in a truncated posted. I have repaired the article to include both the complete article and the intended edits. 172.193.9.65 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a comment to your talk page to that effect so it doesn't confuse anyone. JoshuaZ 06:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD customs

Hi. I think you should clarify your intention on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Brodnik. I guess you want to retract your delete vote and change it to a keep vote? In that case, it is customary to strike out your retracted vote (put <s> in front of it and </s> behind it) or indicate in an other way that you changed your vote. Otherwise, the closing administrator might not notice what happened.

By the way, you don't need to warn me every time the conflict at perfect number flares up again. I have that page on my watchlist, so I'll notice myself. Rosser's theorem refers to his result mentioned on Godel's incompleteness theorem that it's not necessary to assume omega-consistency. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I know to strike out, I must have forgot to do so in this case. Thanks for the heads up. JoshuaZ 07:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I was combining them together to save future space. Sorry for the confusion. No harm meant. Whopper 17:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

203.217.8.30

I have extended the block to 1 week. Has s/he been attempting to change your password too? Cnwb 23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Blocking

Taken care of. Thanks for asking me. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C)

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks

JoshuaZ/Archive 1, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

203.36.44.13

203.36.44.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now been blocked for 48 hours. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Deadbeat RfAr-er comes through

Well, in a fashion, at least. May try and add to or tidy up later. Thanks for the reminders. Alai 07:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WAREL and Perfect number

This was the edit [8] Both versions state that every perfect number is a harmonic number. Since the sum of the inverse factors is 2, the harmonic mean of the factors is δ(N)/2. Therefore the only fact needed is that no perfect number has an odd number of factors = isn't a perfect square. Warel is mucking up this derivation; which I suppose should be more explicit. Septentrionalis 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see we were, in effect, in edit conflict. I don't really care which we use, as long as the related facts stay together. Septentrionalis 21:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Computational number theory and Algorithmic number theory

The two have two separate articles (both stubs). As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) they are the same thing. Therefore inquiring whether 1) this is correct and if so 2) which should reasonably redirect to which? I'm leaning towards making the first a redirect to the second. JoshuaZ 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also say they are the same, or at least almost the same. Perhaps, algorithmic number theory focuses solely on the algorithms, whereas computational number theory is a bit broader. I'd make the redirect the other way around, because I've heard more of computational number theory than algorithmic number theory. The Mathematics Subject Classicification (MSC) also uses computational number theory (category 11X). But you probably know the subject better. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

God

Because the anoymous IP address brought in incivility along with POV issues, I consider it as vandalism, and as such I think the vandalism warning was completely valid. Olorin28 03:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming

Please do not reinstate spam links because you like them. I didn't like a lot of those links. I only marked the ones as spam that were spam. Those sites clearly violate Wikipedia's external link policy, which states that sites should "contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." --Brothergrimm 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying here as well as copying this to your talk page to make sure you see it. The external link policy is the policy for references. The relevant criterion for spam are discussed at a different page, WP:SPAM. The links are partisan, but not spam. JoshuaZ 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why include partisan links on a scientific issue? --Brothergrimm 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on the talk page. JoshuaZ 06:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA and Mike

From User talk:Joturner...

I suspect that you will get the RfA after Mike's behavior. People will probably support you just out of reaction to his bad behavior. Ah well, one would hope that they would support candidates for the right reasons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the support, but I'm skeptical that what you say will happen. It is unfortunate that my RfA has turned into a discussion and debate over my religion rather than a discussion and debate over my merits. But interestingly enough, this experience is not discouraging at all, but rather empowering. If this RfA fails, you can expect me to be back in a couple months running for adminship again. I will, if I cannot now, prove the detractors wrong. joturner 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

prod v db

Hey, don't worry about it. Quite honestly, it'll go either way, just it bugs me when there's a reasonless prod, and nn-bio is a speedy reason anyways. (Basically, {{prod|whatever}} is always better than just a {{prod}}.) In other words, no worries at all. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 02:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Question About Edit

Hey JoshuaZ,

Nice to meet you! This is user Standonbible.

You left a comment on my discussion page stating that some of my edits did not conform with the neutral-point-of-view policy. Which edits were these?

If you are referring to my edits of the Answers In Genesis page, I have worked extensively with AiG and any edits that I made reflect their point of view, not my own. Several of the edits were personally requested of me by the head of the AiG Answers Department.

If you could explain which edits you mean, I would appreciate it.

Thank you and God bless!

In Him,

standonbible 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: My Earlier Question

Hey JoshuaZ,

I understand. You are correct in saying that "the majority of the scientific community" is a better term than "the secular naturalistic scientific community." After all, 51% is a majority, so. . . . :-)

I have worked closely with Answers In Genesis on several occasions; in fact I had an article published on their site recently. I was chatting with the head of their Answers Department, Mr. Bodie Hodge, and he requested that I make the edit regarding the interview with Dawkins.

This is what happened: after Dawkins was speechless for about 11 seconds, he requested "Could you turn that video off?" The people did so but they kept the audio running so that they would have an uncut record. After Dawkins came out with his (dishonest) claim that he had been "considering whether to throw the questioner out of the studio", the company released the uncut audio. Since then he has backed off from his claim.

With regard to the "opinion of me vs. opinion of AiG" issue:

All I have stated are facts. Whenever it appears that I am stating an opinion, I am actually stating the fact that AiG holds this particular opinion. Big difference. Note language like "AiG has pointed out" or "AiG believes" or "The claim made by AiG is that".

Hope that helps! I am thankful that we can discuss this politely even though we hold opposing viewpoints.

In Him,

standonbible 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand why "secular, naturalistic" was rather POV. And no, I have no other knowledge of AiG asking anyone to edit Wikipedia. My request was obtained over the phone in a rather relaxed setting; it wasn't an "official policy" or anything of that nature.

In Him,

standonbible 14:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi JoshuaZ. Thanks for raising the question on my RfA. I just wanted to let you know that I have answered, in case you hadn't already noticed. Cheers TigerShark 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School

Hi Josh! You didn't know me, but I actually remember you from Hopkins. I am actually still a student there (well, a second-term senior, but a student nonetheless. :) ), and I've sent out emails to the various copyright holders. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think all that can be done has been done in terms of requesting image releases. Any useful edits (especially if you have some cool, unique source not currently used) to the article itself would of course be appreciated. Staxringold 21:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm James Ringold. I would still have had a ponytail back then and I used to play MTG/Chess in the gallery. Staxringold 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on Hopkins' FAC would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Staxringold 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Hi Joshua. A word to the wise - I noticed you used {{vandal}} in your latest set of evidence. While it's a useful template, when used for someone who's not a clear vandal it tends to cause offense. If you don't mind something slightly more cumbersome, I would suggest using {{subst:vandal}}, which provides the identical effect on the page and is almost as easy to write, but avoids having to deal with someone complaining Joshua called me a vandal...(waaah!) Guettarda 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do I think? It's interesting. My initials thoughts were that it was another piece of the puzzle around AiG/CMI's campaign here. I suppose the posting below pretty much confirms that suspician. Guettarda 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

standonbible

Joshua, I noticed you added a new section to the RfA that has several inaccuracies that, when corrected, will make the entire section irrelevant to the RfA. You state 'Just recently, an AiG employee, standonbible stated that he was asked to make POV edits to AiG by his employers'. Please re-examine the evidence. The conclusion you draw about employment is inaccurate based on the fact that the AiG article that standonbible (linked from the AiG website) states that he is 'a homeschooled junior in high school [age 16]' whose 'parents suggested that [he] summarize [his] conversation with the biology professor and send it to Answers in Genesis'. AiG then published the summary as an article. To call him an employee adds false weight, and gives an appearance of relevance on the RfA where none exists. Also, user:standonbible stated that an AiG employee requested a correction of a factually incorrect statement regarding Dawkins (i.e., not POV edits). It would be my assumption that is was brought up by standonbible, rather than solicited from the AiG employee, but that is conjecture. However, so is your conclusion. You state 'The claim is consistent with other edits made by the user' by this is not supported by evidence. Standonbible indicated that a single edit was requested. To assert otherwise, especially as evidence on an RfA, is dishonest. agapetos_angel 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos, maybe I am missing something here, what link says that he is this 16 year old you speak of? And in any event, it is highly problematic that AiG people are asking specific other people to make edits for them. JoshuaZ 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NM, found it. JoshuaZ 02:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've let standsonbible know that you have indicated him on the RfA on his talk page, because that is the right thing to do. If you decide to retract your statements, please comment on his talk page that you have done so. Joshua, this is a good example of WP:BITE. If he leaves now, you might have another editor that you can claim was involved and ran off because of your accusations, but being 'dragged to the headmaster's office' seems to be more the cause than the content of your accusations. agapetos_angel 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that a high ranking AiG member actively asked him to "several" pro-AiG edits to the AiG article. If anything, we should commend the young man for his honesty in this matter, and I will say as much to him. Meanwhile, the fact is that AiG is now undeniably actively interfeering with Wikipedia. Such behavior is questionable at best. JoshuaZ 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with problematic related to the specific information you were given. Your recent edit states:

• 'Just recently, an AiG affiliated individual standonbible stated that he was asked to make POV edits to AiG by his employers. See this dif [298]and [299]. The claim is consistent with other edits made by the user, and furthermore his edits are similar to edits which had been pushed by various pro-AiG editors [300] [301]. AiG is thus actively asking people to edit in a pro-AiG fashion.'

'asked to make POV edits'? Evidence? Standsonbible stated that he was asked to correct the Dawkins inaccuracy fullstop. Why do you consider that edit POV? Because he states that the uncut audio was released? Because he states that Dawkin's allegations are said to be unfounded? Glenn Morton from talkorigins stated 'I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the question' and 'After listening to the audio tape, her video, I firmly believe records an accurate account of the Dawkings incident'. [9] Why is Barry Williams' claim NPOV, but Glenn Morton's refuttal POV? Because the first harms creationists, while the second shows the mistake was the sceptics?

'The claim is consistent'? How is it consistent? Again, standsonbible stated he was asked to correct one inaccuracy. Am I missing where he said he was asked to make several? That might be questionable, but does it belong on the RfA, or on a RfC as a separate issue?

'by his employers' still needs to be removed.

I am trying to resolve this here, rather than pointing it out on the RfA, because I think these are honest mistakes. agapetos_angel 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He says several here: [10], at which point he had made two edits. I have no strong opinion about the Dawkins edit, the other is POV pushing. As for the employers, I have modified that, thanks. JoshuaZ 03:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I did not see 'several'. However, I still fail to see why this is on our RfA as it hasn't been brought through the WP:DR channels (i.e., new editor being dragged to ArbCom without due process). Also, your statement is still unclear. You said 'stated that he was asked to make POV edits to AiG' but the 'several' edits of POV are not indicated, and the way it is worded suggests that the request was to make POV edits, not that the edits are considered to be POV (indicating lack of good faith). You list one that you object to, and Dawkins which you state you have no strong opinion on it, so there is still lack of evidence of 'several' POV edits. (I've shown the Dawkins edit is not POV because it was negated by someone from the same 'side'.) Might I suggest 'Just recently, an AiG-affiliated individual stated that he was asked to make several edits to AiG by his compatriots which indicate a pro-AiG slant' (or similar, with diffs)? This would show good faith to a newbie without compromising the evidence you want to submit. agapetos_angel 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to take the teeth out of your evidence. I am concerned about accuracy, especially in this case where it concerns a new editor. 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, you would be completely correct about bringing it through lower level DR (or simply a polite note or two) first. However, we already have accusations that AiG and CMI affiliated individuals (such as possibly yourself and Jonathan Sarfati) have edited the AiG and related articles. Furthermore, whether those accusations are accurate seems to be a major issue in this RfA. Therefore, further evidence of AiG affiliated individuals editing the article is highly relevant to the RfA in question. As for the use of the phrase "POV" I am well within the bounds of WP:AGF because the editor presumably did not know about WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think you are biting a newbie, and that your statement is inaccurately worded, but I'll leave that for ArbCom. Thank you for making the corrections you made. agapetos_angel 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA questions

Hello there. I've tried to answer your questions, and hope that I've done so informatively. -- Hoary 08:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm lost

I think I get the basic idea of what happened here, but I'm still not sure. What is the RfA?

Could anyone involved with this fiasco check out my recent comment on my discussion page? I would be more than happy to answer any questions anyone might have.

In Him,

standonbible 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos arbitration

Thank you for your note, I will keep it in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, have you retracted your mistake with the ArbCom members you contacted? agapetos_angel 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A clarification was made. JoshuaZ 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I feel my change was to this article was more neutral than the current wording. I've explained why on the discussion page. Kernow 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, now go away (aka - don't be a dick)

STOP MAKING EDITS THAT BETRAY YOUR FAILURE TO DO APPROPRIATE RESEARCH: There is no RULE (see 5 pillars) that requires edit summaries (or articles) avoid profanity. There's also an ignore all rules rule, and sure, there are millions of Wikipedia guidelines about all sorts of things, many contradictory. There's one about avoiding personal attacks that I skirted; I described someone's actions as lazy ass. And I said OK in response to your comment. (And I should add that the edit I criticized were pretty clearly made in bad faith - it was the removal of well known readily verifiable undisputed facts. Certain facts do not require references. For example, it's a fact that the number of hours in a day is 24. In just calling the edit lazy ass, I was being charitable.) Please leave my talk page alone. I do not wish to discuss this further. You are just pissing me off. Again: PLEASE GO AWAY, unless it is your intent to piss me off further. I.e. drop this issue entirely. Elvey 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Death

Greetings. Look again, carefully. The spambot works by copying a large portion of the existing article and pasting it in, including the links to the pill pages (here is the edit I actually reverted) [11]. There have been hundreds of these spambot edits in just the last couple hours. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Groan, thats a clever trick, someone should talk to Tawker about adding it as a condition for his nice little bot to RV. JoshuaZ 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it fooled a lot of us ... it makes it hard to see the spam links. I think they've all been reverted now but I'm going to check the last 5000 anon edits again just in case. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

rfa questions

okay, they've been answered. cheers --He:ah? 23:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

no problem. I was kinda wondering about that question . . .  ;) --He:ah? 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. You raised a couple of questions, I have answered them. Please give me a shout if you have any others or need clarification. Regards Mark83 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

10 Deities?

I'm addressing an erronous comment you made at my talkpage under "Question...". You wrote the following:

For all evolution cares, there could be a deity, there could be 10 deities, there could be B(20) deities, where B is the Busy Beaver Function, there could be infinitely many deities, or there could be none and none of these possiblities effect evolution in the slightest.

I suppose you are aware with Occom's (or Ockham's) razor?:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

--EChronicle 23:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware (although Occam never said that, his writing is ironically verbose). The point is that evolution doesn't care about the number. You might be able to make arguments about the number independent of evolution, but evolution doesn't care one way or another. JoshuaZ 04:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

JoshuaZ/Archive 1, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA questions

Hi JoshuaZ,

I've answered your questions. If there are any other questions you have, feel free to ask them. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about Rob Church's questions on my RfA. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

New user Joshuaz

Hello JoshuaZ, did you know that someone started a new account with the user name Joshuaz. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Joshuaz": Misleading username --FloNight ^talk 10:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll head over there. It isn't me. JoshuaZ 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re : List of TRACS members

I did a re-count, minus these socks it's still no consensus. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give us the results of that recount and who was discounted? Arbusto 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm passing the alleged socks through WP:RCU. I ask for your patience in the meantime, pending the outcome of the results before re-looking at the AfD itself. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Noted. :) We'll see how things turn out. Don't worry to much. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick

Why I removed the link from his page. See this discussion User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely, last night. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring prollik's comment on his talk page I di not realizeze I deleted it. I simply meant to restore my comment. The huge amount of white space that he edited into the page confused me. Good 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Gastrich RfC

Well don't I feel like a dork? I've known that particular (butt)-(headwear) from when he attacked Stardestroyer.net's BBS with tactics quite similar to those seen here. It seems fundamentalists are still quite shrill and underhanded in their dealings with greater culture and society-at-large. E. Sn0 =31337= 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually wasn't aware of that particular incident. He certainly seems to get around. I would hasten to add however that Gastrich is not a representative sample of evangelical christianity. For one, he is OSAS and most of them aren't. Even given OSAS, he is still much worse than the norm. JoshuaZ 05:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OSAS? E. Sn0 =31337= 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Once Saved, Always Saved" It is the doctrine that once one has accepted Jesus into one's heart nothing one can do will remove one from ones state of salvation. OSASers seem to have more problems with things like honesty than other groups since they a) often make the common apologetic claim that morality doesn't make sense without a threat from a deity(putting it less politely than it is normally phrased) and b) no longer consider themselves threatened. They thus have minimal reasons to act morally. However, even most OSASers would not act like Gastrich because 1) most humans still have some minimal moral intuition and some of them are good people regardless of their theologies and 2) Many of them have a symptomatic notion of salvation. Once someone is truly saved, they can't become unsaved, but peoples actions are symptomatic of whether or not they are saved. JoshuaZ 20:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So they essentially have a 'get out of hell free' mentality. No wonder they sin so much after being 'saved'. EDIT: E. Sn0 =31337= 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

The questions were answered Maltesedog 09:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello JoshuaZ, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your comments and grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished!

Well, I answered the questions you posed on my RfA, anyway. Regards, ProhibitOnions 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedi6 RFA

I have finished all your questions. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

About question #2 - clarification request

If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

Do you mean in terms of policy? Or what I wish for Wikipedia in general? Or is it just an open question? --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty open. JoshuaZ 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Groovy, thanks. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Will do, just give me 20 min or so, NSLE beat you to the buzzer and the pizza guy just did his (daily it seems) offering of food :) -- Tawker 01:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've provided an answer to the questions you've posted so far. Would you like me to grab the questions you've asked everyone else and post those two, you seem to have a knack for writing good (and tough) questions ;) -- Tawker 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want grab and answer those too feel free, I won't object to more information to work with (yours seem to be a highly unique and tough decision). JoshuaZ 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will see what other questions I can find. As I think you need some energy to make this decision, have a cookie, it might keep you awake :) -- Tawker 03:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You now have lots and lots and lots of questions to look at and I'm looking for some more :), I'm trying to see if this page has the most questions of any RfA ever (and I think its getting there, its the longest of any of the active ones :) -- Tawker 08:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

I had replied to your questions but someone this morning decided to close the rfa early. shame Maltesedog 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion of..

Adverbials? Do you class 'the' as an adverbial as it describes a noun e.g 'the dog' or do you just, like me, see it as a definite article? James Kendall [talk] 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No strong opinion but I lean towards "definite article" why? JoshuaZ 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Gastrich email

Hi JoshuaZ, I need your email address in order to forward you the thing. And also how can I forward it to the ArbCom? (Is there one email address just for the ArbCom?) Sure, no problem. I'm trying to monitor some of the articles he majorly edited such as Louisiana Baptist University. Just poke my talk page if I haven't forward you the email. Thanks :) --Terence Ong 14:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Did he email you too? E. Sn0 =31337= 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich? No. JoshuaZ 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA of ProhibitOnions

Erm, that was me. I hate this computer, doesn't keep cookies :-/ --Rory096 19:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade

Hey, I noticed that you've been in a dispute with Sam Spade on the article God and Human. We've had a similar problem with his reverting over at Socialism. Could you comment at Talk:Socialism#Sam_Spade.27s_consistent_reversions? Thanks. -- infinity0 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello JoshuaZ/Archive 1: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little personalization ;-). Thanks for adding your question to my RfA, I think that it greatly helped it's outcome(because I explained my low Talk page count), and thanks for ultimatly supporting. Prodego ^talk 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I gave a "last warning" if the vandal continues, I'll block. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They (school ip) seem to have stopped Prodego ^talk 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You did, blocked for 1 hour (because school IP), as you can tell from this message, they vandalized again. Prodego ^talk 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhh not sockpuppets! ;-) I'm not doing anything controvesial now! Find someone else for sockpuppets! Prodego ^talk 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus that second editor hasn't edited since the 20th of March, remember blocks prevent damage, they are not intended as punishment, says the wizened 1 day old administrator ;-) Prodego ^talk 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but where we are needed now is CSD. But I'm out, oh well. Prodego ^talk 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Archive now, when your at 100 comments Prodego ^talk 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)