User talk:Alai/Archive5

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4

Stub category sizes

Hello! I wonder how does one obtain listings like User:Alai/Small stubs2. I want to update category sizes at WP:WSS/ST, so I'd like to have the full list of stub categories with their sizes. So, two questions:

1. Is the some place to read on this? (On downloading the database dump and extracting the data, or on making a proper database request.)
2. If you already have such a list, would you please send me a copy / provide a link?

Thanks, Conscious 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Any order will do, I'll try to write a script to simplify the update. Conscious 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, I've done the update. Conscious 08:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-improvement

Holi greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2006. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to kindly give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, it didn't go through this time (22/11/8). I hope you'll consider me again next time. --Christopherlin 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Macao/Macau

If there's a case to be made about the "common name in English" of this place, it should surely be done in a renaming request of the main article itself (and perhaps there is, my only "dog" is consistency). Arguing for Instantnood's supposed position, in having some categories named one thing, and some named another -- expressly contrary to the naming conventions -- surely isn't a good idea either way. Alai 05:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think your suggestion that the main article is the place to discuss which usage is more prevalent is quite right. To do so would maximize the input of knowledgable and interested editors. MayerG 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub templates

I simply came upon an existing category that I assumed was meant to be populated. Since it's apparently not wanted I'll obviously stop.--ThreeAnswers 06:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 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 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Yes I already saw and responded to your objections. I will revert and do future updates on a temp page.\ Note that the # of pages was changed to <#### look in the talk page, and on mine, I have had several agree that the page numbers v. number of articles were not a big deal.Eagle (talk) (desk)

As it is I will revert the change.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you still want me to revert???. I will do so if you wish.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to do the revert, as it is my mistake. if it is needed.

Please do realize that I am acting in good faith, I have already removed the boxes and the bot runtime. I left the messages for now, as it will help me to run a few trial runs. I have done all I could to ammend for my own error. I'm sorry and I hope you accept my apology.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pages

you stated that the date was removed, this I did on purpose as the counts are all done in the same time frame every time. I was just going to put a counted on <date here>. near the top of the page.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Statistics

I left a response to your second objection. on Wikipedia talk:Statistics. Thanks for making me think the motives through, but you still have not changed my mind.In the long run no more manual count is something that will be worth my time and effort now.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, i won't revert

By the way, here is a link to a partial sample (much larger than that of what is on the page)

User:Eagle 101/Gnome/Sample

Please feel free to poke all the holes into my bots mistakes.(I'd rather find them now than later:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for telling me some objectons, it was for the better!!! Give me more.Eagle (talk) (desk)

Alai

What Alai did was run a progrma to get the article counts, than he took each count and put the counts in by hand. hence why his method was called semi automated. Is also why he did not need to reformat the page.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE The page was really not reformated, as it was made to be consistant to standards that the majority of the articles followed.

Tell me about the indirect feeds. perhaps in the future my bot can do this. Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

I will have to get with consious about the script, but in all honesty the page is readable to the bot, and readable to us humans. Have a look at it yourself!! If you don't like what I did just let me know and I can change it. But right now it is consistant. Sorry, but when I watched that going on, I thouth it was manual, as it took place over the span of multiple edits.Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me about the db feed?? My bot may be able to make use of it. as it is now though the only major problem is the redlinks, once that is fixed we are in the clear. (Updates to format, ect can be made after that. Did you look at what the bot got?? up a couple headings.Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For now I will restrict the bot to saterdays. I may put a larger sample on the WP:SC on saterday. (perhaps half) and without major objections automate the proccess by(on) the following saterday.

Alai?? Integregation

Holy crap, it just hit me...Can you insure that the categories out of the feed match the categories on the page...In number??? With more programming (8 hours and counting) this can be done. Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also Alai I will be logging off soon, so I will get your reply tomarrow. (probably about 15 or 16 hours from now.Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Word

If it does not take much of your time...can you get me a copy for testing, by the way what formats and data do I get to chose from??? I will have to reprogram...(hopefully less than 8 hours) but if it removes your objection to being resorce intensive... it may be worth it.(Trying to act in good faith here...) Just realize though that I have a fully functioning bot right now. In fact why don't we wait on the db feed untill I see what comments I get to my bot's operation on the page. (thanks for not having me revert) Now I'm really leavingEagle (talk) (desk) 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting on WP:SC

I just wanted you to know that the "formatting" namley making the page consistant, is already being taken up by other editors. I want you to realize that the word formatting is probably not correct, more correct would be making the page's format more consitant.

Instead of:

• somthing
• something
• something

It now is formatted so that only the 3rd option is used. (other editors have already picked it up and are finding ones that I missed!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

look at the actual wiki formatting, edit page to tell the diff

db dump

I will entertain that after I fix the redlink problem. Right now I have a functioning program, I will incorporate more less intensive features later. (Like withen a month or two at most) Dispite that I'm not going to run the bot untill next week. (real life is in the way)Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally after the redlinks, I'm not sure how much of this code I'm going to want to look at for a while:-)

programming-stub

Hi! I want to do some stub sorting so good you give me an answer at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#.7B.7Bprogramming-stub.7D.7D. Cheers, —Ruud 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a Transclusion-style redirect

I saw this on the SFD.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I should know that...looking in my head, knocking down cobwebs, but I don't. Now I do!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting...For Gnome (bot)

I am going to delay the start of this bot for 2-3 weeks, For two reasons.

1) The Redlinks have to be fixed, I ran a test today and it hit one, the results were nasty...Can you say Error 362 times

2) I thought up a great way to NOT have to do any special formatting. All that is required are 2 things.

A) a < symbol before each category to be counted.

B) All Categories that are to be counted be in bold.

Trust me this is far better than what I have now...so just give me time.(I will be having surgery soon... so...2-3 weeks is probably optimistic)Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RESPOND ON MY TALK PAGE PLEASE...and let me know what you think.(That will take care of 2 out of 3 objections) the third is partly covered by my running on Saterdays, but trust me it is on the todo list:-)

User:Ronald20

I saw your note to User:Ronald20. I will be VERY surprised if he responds, since he has never responded to anyone's messages before. The IP is for the Los Angeles Unified School District where he is one of the few regular editors on the Wikipedia. ^BlankVerse 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of his edits, I wouldn't call his recent nomination bad faith. The wording (e.g. "anyone fancies a rummage") is very unlike anything he's written--it looks more like something Grutness would write. I couldn't find anything in a Google search, but I am guessing that someone has used that phrase in a CFD, TFD, or SFD nomination in the past. If you want to see some more info and my specuations on him, look here ^BlankVerse 17:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronald has done the same cut and paste for a nomination at either TFD or CRD (I don't remember which one), but I think that it is much more likely that both actions were imitations of the other nom, rather than bad faith or retaliation. I've seen a few disruptive editors who have claimed various intellectual problems (User:Wiki brah comes to mind) who I think were just doing a very bizarre form of trolling, but I think that Ronald20's actions are those of someone with a genuine case of Aspergers, or another form of autism, or something similar. ^BlankVerse 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Arbitration

FYI, There is an ongoing RfA about Agapetos and the Sarfati page, here. JoshuaZ 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic Traditionalism

Can you get a look at this page please, and report back? I think it is very POV and inaccurate for a number of reasons. --MacRusgail 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done some very significant and "bold" editing of the Gaelic Traditionalism article. I'm telling you because I value your input on improving the content and form of the article. Anyway, if you have a chance to pop by and give some feedback, I'd appreciate it. It's more NPOV now. Not perfect, but much better, IMHO. I hope no one screams that I've eviscerated it but it needed drastic editing work to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards as I understand them. I believe what remains is a relatively workable core article. I've also archived a good bit of the talk page so it isn't such a monster to navigate. --Mac 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input tonight on the Gaelic Traditionalism page. Some of your comments paralleled my own thoughts and questions but I was unwilling to completely say them. I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I didn't want to "slash and burn" the article. I thought my above mentioned "bold" edits (which cut about four/fifths of the content) might begin to pave the way to salvaging the article. I'm much less certain now. Anyway, thanks again. I believe your comments have offered very clear indications about the problems with the article. --Mac 08:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for helping out with the page. What seems key to me, and I've just mentioned it on the Talk page, is that the authors of this piece are using "Gaelic Traditionalist" and "Traditionalist Gael" to mean something very different than what is usually meant by those words. It seems like a very small group trying to redefine terms that have a totally different meaning to an entire culture of people. I can't see how that conflict in meaning serves an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic. --Martin MacGrath 09:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm fawning with my continued compliments, I continue to be impressed and astonished with your quick skill at cutting to the heart of matters on the talk page of this article. "Gaelic Traditionalists are a tiny bunch of non-Gaelic non-traditionalists who insist that their neopagan reconstruction not be called 'neopagan' or 'reconstruction'." A marvel of counterpoint, that. I regret that I attempted to be a little too kind, a little too councilitory in the face of an avalanche of bafflegab. I really should have trusted my initial assessment of the page and acted accordingly. Consensus is fine but if the original concept and basis of the entry is flawed, even consensus will reach a flawed conclusion. *sigh* Live and learn. Undoubtedly, conviction and clarity about an article's goals and appropriateness would improve my editing and talk page skills. Once again, thank you. No wonder you pull down the big bucks as sysop. (I jest.) You are my shining exemplar. (Well, for the moment. I have a short attention span.) --Mac 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A Favor?

Hi Alai, wondering if I can ask a favor. Things have gotten quite heated at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. between User:Bcatt and a number of Mormon editors (we have moved a portion of the discussion to my talk page). I've tried to step in and help guide the discussion, but because I am a Latter-day Saint adherent, I am being accused of treating her differently than Mormon editors and abusing my administrative status (see my talk page) - both which I take very seriously.

Whenever I've tried to guide the discussion (which I have not been a part of for the bulk, except to try to help guide), she seems to have blown up at me, as if I am mastermining and encouraging discrimination about her. For example, a few months ago I suggested that she and Storm Rider work out their uncivility and take a break from the page, but she though I was being harsher on her than him (he took a break, she didn't). When I suggested we find out who the sock puppet is on the JS Jr, she said that I was holding double standards for LDS editors, and "engaging in questionable practices due to [my] bias." I don't know what I did to make her over-react like that, as my interaction with her was very limited up until that point, although she does have a history of controversy and antagonism towards personal beliefs (ie politics, philosophy and religion)(see her user boxes). As a non-Mormon admin who is trusted in the Wikipedia community, could you go to the talk page, read through and offer suggestions? In addition, and personally, I'd appreciate a critique of my handling of the situation and her. I do take these accusations seriously, as you know. Thanks in advance. -Visorstuff 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I second this request - I removed JS from my watchlist for a week hoping things would calm down since she seemed particularly angry towards me - but returned to find things worse - and any attempts I have made to find middle ground or to help have been summarily dismissed - Trödel 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the poisoned chalice^W^Wvote of confidence. :) I'll see what I do. As you've taken no admin actions at all on this, I don't see where any possible misuse would be (though I can only find indirect suggestions of this from bcatt, to be fair to her). Alai 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what I thought (about misuse). Her characterations of my misuse is found at my talk page. But they don't seem to fit the job description, if I read correctly. Suggestions of how to respond? -Visorstuff 00:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've left her a note on that, perhaps just wait and see if she responds to that, in the first instance. I assume you mean her "you aren't doing a very good job as an admin..." comment, which even if true (and I trust it's not) would not be a commentary on you as an admin if you've taken no admin action (or any "fear or favour" stuff as such, which I can also see no evidence of). If I were to speculate (though I really ought not...), perhaps it's an "admins should be held to a higher standard" argument, or merely a rhetorical connection between the two, rather than an accusation as such. Alai 01:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As to whether Visorstuff was acting in the capacity of an admin when he ignored rampant policy violations by Storm Rider: he says here, "as an admin", referring to himself. Thus, proof that he was indeed acting in the capacity of an admin, not of an editor...not that an admin should be allowed to choose when they want to act as an admin or not, as this situation clearly demonstrates how that "I want to be an admin now, but not now" power can be abused...namely by "choosing not to be an admin" when editors in your own faction need to be kept in line, then "choosing to be an admin" in order to reprimand an editor who has finally responded to repeated abuse. bcatt 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if I seem so absolute on the page in regard to requesting formal mediation or arbitration (knowing well that formal mediation, advocacy all come before arbitration), but we've got editors who don't want to edit the page, nor participate in the discussion due to the situation. Storm Rider had taken a wikiholiday [1] from the page until it gets resolved, Trodel doesn't want to engage in discussion [2], and I feel that my reputation is being marred - all smell of intimidation tactics - and Cogden hasn't edited anything since this edit war has begun - a huge loss of expertise - you'll notice his MO is to avoid conflict altogether. My reputation (and I know I'm probably taking this overboard, Alai) is important here, and I'll probably bring it up for RFC on admin conduct myself, as I want it made clear I've not abused any of my powers. The bottom line is the editors of the page are more monitoriing her edits rather then the article's content and the articel is looking mighty sad. Should I be bold and start editing the article (up to this point, I have not) with documented sources, removing those that are not documented? What do you suggest? In any case, you are right in your statement on the page in all you said. I completely agree. Bringing you and Wesley in was in hopes of an Informal mediation process or third party, and we already know that there are too many Mormons watching this page to do a survey/poll. Bcatt seems to be rejecting all other solutions. The next step is asking for formal mediation. I don't want Wikipedia to lose more editors on this topic than already have been lost. -Visorstuff 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Cat:Kurdish_people_stubs

I have placed a rationale, what do you think. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pov inspired delete/keeps

There is an ongoing systematic pov pushing on kurd related articles.

We also have lots of useless categoties such as Category:Kurdish culture, Category:Kurdish dance, Category:Kurdish language films, Category:Kurdish literature. List is quite endless. There are perhaps more categories than articles on kurdish culture and literature. Such categories are often created bu users whoes only contribution is creating them or by users who dont know english. On several occasions people who create these chains of imposible to navigate categories and sub categories can be observed POV pushing. I can cite spesific examples with little effort. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So there needs a systematic deleting of categories with very few articles as well as pov oriented stub categories and templates. I do not mind a helping hand in sorting this mess. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle Stubs

I have made many(and probably too many) battle stub categories. (Category:Scottish battle stubs, Category:Finnish battle stubs, Category:Welsh battle stubs, Category:Anglo-Saxon battle stubs, and Category:English battle stubs. Some of these are very small, and, though good intentioned(battle stubs were coordinating with the battles categories), they are wrong stub categories. Kirill Lokshin told me to ask you for help, and thus, I will do that. Do you have any advice on how to better categorize these stubs. Thank you. Rshu 02:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this comment was intended for you ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)'

Yes, I got confused between you two. :-) Anyways, I can categorize the English, Scottish, and Welsh battle stubs back into the British battle stub category. Rshu 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since it was not too hard to make them, it will not be too hard to categorize them back. However, I will keep the templates, as suggested. Rshu 03:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to make subcategories? Maybe making those former categories for all of the parts of the UK could be used for subcategories. Just an idea. Rshu 14:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I got another idea. Poland and Russia might have at least 50 battle stubs. Maybe a category could be made for those. Or even a category for all Slavic battle stubs. Rshu 15:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are exactly 507 battle stubs the last time that I checked. For the battle stubs, I will do the marking of the stubs if you make the template and the category for the Russian ones. Please message me whenever you do so. Rshu 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have started on categorizing that stub category. Anyways, why not have the Russian flag for the stub template? Rshu 11:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished. Rshu 11:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything on the Scandanavian battle stub idea? Rshu 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, is there any count on if they would be over sixty? Rshu 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WSS/ST

I've updated WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

re:India stubs

Hi Alai - I perfectly understand your consternation about my creating the India-stubs after just 2 days. I was aware of the 7-day wait, and I thought several times before doing this, and I apologize to you. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and participation. It looks like a silly thing to haste, but... Rama's Arrow 04:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

re: {{AustroAsiatic-lang-stub}}

Thanks, Alai. I've been too busy lately to do anything but minor edits and revert vandalism. I will begin to go back and tag all the appropriate stubs with this tempate.--WilliamThweatt 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Size Criteria

Alright...I was going to post for a delete untill I realized that one of the editors had posted problems about finding articles that they wanted to edit...Hence my keep vote...(I did change it, based on the rational posted by you and another person below...Who made a comment.

Please do realize that my vote is my vote...And that I posted that I would change, if good reasons were given...I'm like that. (trust me you will see more of that in the future). All you have to do is satisfy my questions and I will change to go with the majority...If my question has been anseared satifactorly. (I am not a big proponent of deleting things unless they are reeeally small or misnamed, ect. I like to base my vote on a bit more than just how many articles there are...(I ask things like is there an associated wikiproject???, Is it likily to see it fill up in the future...(provided that it is properly made ect.)).

Realize If I vote opposite of the consensous...It is merly to make the consenous give good reasons and to give the other side a chance...(After all we are all working on the same encyclopedia)

P.S. (Please don't go to my page disscussing my vote...Do so on the main page...And realize that my first vote is not my final vote...I like to see the two sides as best as I can...If voting agiast the majority provides me a chance to do that I will...Trust me I won't make it any harder for you to do rightfull deleate, but the questionable ones...or ones that I don't know much about...but seem legit...I like to poke and prod.)

P.S.S. And Yes you will be seeing alot more of me!!!!...Feel free to tell me if I am doing something stupid...But after you wait to see the result of the questioned vote.:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I try to listen to all of the editors point of view...Not just the "regulars" you and Gruntness(So far I noticed):-) Policy has its place...but I feel that here especially(as ours is really not policy in the same way the the 3RR rule) that sometimes other editors intent should also be looked at.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Please comment on my page.(tell me how wrong I am!!!as normal:-)

I perfectly understand that...just sometimes I get irratated when I see people who are trying there best to fill these things...(plus read above...I like to feel out the argumet...get a feeling for who has what motive ect.I like to try and remember Assume Good Faith. Hence the reason for my many non-majority votes...and subsequent changes...when the majority makes it's point clear...or the minority starts crying about "vendetta's" ect.:-) Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Agian tell me how wrong I am!!!Please do respond.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Centimeter

The page has been recreated now three times I think. We should arrive at a consensus about whether it should be an article or just a redirect (I favor redirect, but only weakly). JoshuaZ 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Recreated "stable version"

[3]: Keep, there are currently, only ever, and few as two stable versions. -- Zondor 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[4]: Its the same as Wikipedia/Stable. -- Zondor 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[5]: You couldn't say the consensus to delete was overwhemling strong and true with just the two votes. I suppose it can be considered speediable. Stable versions are suppose to last indefinately. There is no onus that reviewing must be done within a week or longer and depends on people's convenience. So Stable versions are not something to be rushed. Its still quite a new idea that people have not taken it up to yet. Its slow and steady like the earth evolves slowly through millions of years. It no longer uses protection so its no so anti-wiki anymore. Its not a huge and uncomfortable fork but a snapshot with minor revisions. There is no other way around the naming convention. Plus, there is at least some consensus that stable versions is a favourable idea. While the dynamic version is cutting edge, whereas the stable version provides reliability. Imagine if we have 10,000 of these to become a truly professional encyclopaedia. -- Zondor 08:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[6]: The project was going towards having forked versions and I do realise its a pain to make it more complex with that. So I have advocated on the Talk of Stable Versions, the use of phases between Stable Review Version, Stable Release Version and Wiki Version; all taking place on the same one article of the article namespace. That is, there are no subpages such as /Stable. This means if people want to make major additions, they would have to end the Stable Version phases before they can reach the Wiki Version. Wikipedia/Stable and Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable are temporary articles to reach the final form of Stable Version implementation. We end up cycling between these three phases, and each iteration produces a useful Stable Version that are simple markers indicating whether this version with an oldid is a Stable Version or not. -- Zondor 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT?

Are you suggesting that SPUI would make a provocative edit!?! Grevious slander! ^_^
brenneman^{L} 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Joseph Smith, Jr.. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.

I know this is something we would all rather just ignore, but can you help with these kind of remarks - I am continuing my self-imposed ban on editing this page - but this is the tone that bcatt has had consistently on the page - which combined with her uninformed "knowledge" of LDS history makes it difficult, if not impossible to have a rational discussion with her. Trödel 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

CatScan

Hi Alai One of your recent posts mentions a CatScan for counting stubs. Which feature are you referring to? Best regards Valentinian ^(talk) 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd missed that one completely. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos arb

I know this is the second time I've bugged you about this (I won't bug you about it again, I promise) but if you are going to give evidence to the ArbCom, it would be appreciated and useful if you did it soon. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to take a look at Christianity Knowledge Base and join our project!

Thanks!!! 70.30.57.80 06:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati

Do you know of any quotes from "reliable sources for living persons" that should be used to source additions to the Jonathan Sarfati article? Some people seem to think it is unbalanced. I, myself, know of no such sources. So far as I can tell, the only people who care to comment on him either hate him or love him with neither type being an unbiased source. That he's paid to propagandize for young Earth creationist ideology is clear from the article as it stands. Doesn't that say it all? WAS 4.250 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although I am now an atheist, I was raised a fundamentalist Christian and a young Earth creationist. The phrases that are used by people in the conflict over this article to prove who is who (that so snd so is Sarfati) were used in my youth by my pastors. It is sort of like claiming two wikipedians are the same person because they both throw around NPOV, WWIN, and IAR all the time. At least it strikes me that way. WAS 4.250 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Was, since I'm the one who seems to be making the strongest identity claim here, it would have been nice if you had relayed this opinion to me directly. That said, what do you think of the evidence that Sarfati is 220.* ? JoshuaZ 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, JoshuaZ, if you feel slighted. I apologize. I'm far less into direct confrontation than many and I'm really not keeping score on exactly who said what when to who. It would be nice if everyone in this mess could just say all at once "my bad" and move on, but I guess arbcom will have to clarify a few things before this goes away. I think all the they-talk-alike evidence is nonsense because people in these group-think cults/enthusiasms talk alike to maintain group solidarity. Any three teenagers hanging together too much will develop their own lingo. It's human nature. As for other evidence, I have no clue. I suspect that the evidence is totally untrustworthy but that it probably was him anyway. The real issue is "So what?" Why not judge suspect article contributions by the source supplied with the contribution and not worry about real world identities? WAS 4.250 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean I felt slighted, but rather thought that it was an opinion that would have been worth hearing. As to your point, I did think about it briefly. Your phrasing is much more precise than my vague notions of the matter. While you are I think very correct that language would have been insufficient evidence. However, note that 220.* made a large number of chess related edits, some of which required good knowledge of positions (I noted that in the relevant evidence section). Also even among creationists and among AiG people for that matter the term "antitheist" is still comparatively rare. (Personally I think some of the accusations of meatpuppetry, especially in regard to Dennis Fuller have a strong chance of being wrong and I said as much in my evidence section). Thanks very much for your input. JoshuaZ 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing my on-going lack of consistency on talk-page replies, I'll do so here (as there's more than one person to reply to). I'm afraid I can't supply any additional sources; I've really only done google-grade research on him, and I'm not, despite what you might have gathered, really any sort of active participant in C-E matters aside from having been in a couple of such disputes in WP. Personally I'd make no claims about 220.*, though I do admit the thought had occurred to me, even before others made the suggestion explicitly. (The instence of the use of the unusual, at least around here, and clumsy-sounding phrase "PhD scientist" as a descriptor struck me, initially.) I assume here the issue is not, like the "Socrates" issue one of whether this can be demonstrated to standards of Wikipedia bio verifiability, but of whether it's a strong enough possibility to warrant caution in spirit of the WP:AUTO guidelines. Alai 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. WAS 4.250 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a bad example (and I didn't use it in my evidence section you will notice) the phrase "PhD scientist" or a similar variant is actually quite common in creationist circles. They strongly try to emphasize that they have scientiststs on their side, never mind what the scientists actually do or how prominent they are in their fields or how many they have etc. In fact, the attempted emphasis on doctorates in particular seems to be pretty common in a lot of articles related to extreme evangelical Christianity. It seems to be part of their ongoing love/hate relationship with education. See for example the similar issues that occured at Peter Ruckman. JoshuaZ 14:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If they'd simply said "scientist", "PhD", or even "scientist with a PhD" I'd have thought nothing of it. I didn't know that that particular noun-phrase attributive juxtaposition was a common creationist thing, but I did recall JS being quoted as having exclaimed something to the effect of "I'm a PhD scientist" in some face-to-face debate or other. Googling for it seems to get more false positives than anything else ("Mary Smith, PhD, scientist..."). At amy rate, I don't cite this as real evidence of anything, just as illustration of my own "alarm bells". Alai 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any specific occasion when Sarfati has said that but now that you mention it, it does sound vaguely familiar. I'll try to look it up when I have time later (my comment about my section was actually originally meant to go to Was since he seemed to dislike those sorts of claims, but I find it highly interesting that you had similar suspicions). JoshuaZ 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My memory is hazy, I couldn't find it last time I tried to myself. My blurry recollection was that some snotty evolutionist punk teen (as it were) was baiting him about such and such a matter, and he replied in terms roughly congruent to my paraphrase above (perhaps feeling somewhat goaded or otherwise less than his usual temperate self). It may even have been directly in response to someone question his credentials, which would give him a reasonable excuse in those terms. I hope I'm not being wildly inaccurate here; my own lack of specificity is why I didn't bring it up on the article talk page, lest it look let throwing mud and hoping something would stick. Alai 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)