Jump to content

User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Wadler

No problem. As a matter of fact I would like to get some input on if the article is ready for prime time mainspace yet, or if not, what is missing. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Voyage that Shook the World

Updated DYK query On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Voyage that Shook the World, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

That's odd, my email used to be enabled, I've gotten emails from Wikipedia in the past. I've fixed it, go ahead and send me an email. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Garry MacDonald

I take it you know he's alive, and if so, do you also have a birth date? Regards Eldumpo (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see the BLP/harmful rationale for including him in Living People but shouldn't he also go in Category:Year of birth unknown? Eldumpo (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

renominating?

I attempted to renominate Tyler Faith over at Articles for Deletion, but all that happened is the previous discussion from August 2008 appeared (which someone promptly deleted). I'm completely new to trying to get articles deleted (I've previously only been interested in writing & editing articles), so if you have any idea what I did wrong, or just otherwise how best to renominate an article for deletion, please let me know. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Your mention of the Ben Roethlisberger shows once again that you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between civil and criminal issues and also to not know about basic Wikipedia issues like WP:OTHERSTUFF. So I will try to be as blunt as possible: a mention of a claim of a possible civil problem is not the same as a criminal accusation. That's aside from the fact that discussion of notable criminal accusations are acceptable even if they never went to court. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "

[1]

"On July 17, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in Washoe County, Nevada District Court accusing Roethlisberger of sexually assaulting Andrea McNulty, 31, in June 2008 in his hotel room while he was in Lake Tahoe for a celebrity golf tournament"

Not a "criminal charge". A lawsuit. Please, if you are going to try and discuss this, get your facts right. Your statements are utterly insulting as it shows verifies that you are simply making stuff up instead of actually reading, investigating, and the rest. You still haven't asked Jimbo if he believes what you claim about BLP and how it is acceptable to reproduce allegations like that on non-notable subjects. Should I ask him on your behalf? I have seen many statements by him that suggest that he definitely does not agree with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is a matter that deals with the legality and ethical responsibility of Wikipedia in reporting allegations of crime appropriately, Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter. Equally, Godwin would be a secondary choice, but Jimbo would be more reasonable to turn to in terms of ethics, which has a greater motivation to not put up pages devoted to mere allegations of an individual who has not even had a trial yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"He doesn't get a magic decision about what is ethical and what is not" I am referring to him in his role as part of the WMF. They are the ones that are responsible for BLP matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can say that, especially with the AfD stating it at the very beginning. Furthermore, there are many admittances and discussions on the matter - "BLP does in some ways apply" from Mattbuck, who argues that it applies but isn't yet violated (he is a keep). Then there are discussions of and blatant misinterpretations of BLP by Moonriddengirl. Then there is this blatant one: "Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)". I'm only half way down the page, but it is evident that your claim is again unfounded. Please stop insulting my intelligence by trying to pass off things that are obviously not true based on even cursory glances at the situation. BLP applies to -all- pages dealing with living individuals. Having someone accused of stealing stuff and then posting stuff is a BLP issue. There is no ands, ifs, or buts about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"I asserted that "almost no one other than you" which compared to the general set of deletion arguments seems correct. I haven't counted it out, but it looks like about a fourth of all deletion voters think there is a BLP concern." 1/4 is not no one, or almost no one. However, your use of rhetoric to start out with one statement and then change another makes me have no confidence in your statements. I do not ask for much in people that discuss things with me. You can yell, you can attack, you can cuss, and you can do whatever you want. However, when you start misconstruing something with favorable language while ignoring what is easy to see, then I get upset. I don't know if you had anything reasonable to point out in your post, as I stopped there. I'm going to walk away for a bit, because you do not want to know the type of response I honestly want to type out right now in response to that quote above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, I note that you did not reply regarding the matter that actually got us on this tangent in particular, the matter of Jimbo's role." By the way, this is factually wrong. I did reply. I made it very clear that Jimbo would be consulted in his role with the WMF. The BLP is there because of the WMF having to deal with legal issues and ethical issues surrounding these biographies. That cannot be denied, unless you want to claim that OTRS no longer exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

19:44 comes before 20:19. Difference? 35 minutes. "Meanwhile, I note that you did not reply regarding [...] the matter of Jimbo's role". This is clearly false. I replied to it. Your response to it was meaningless and does not acknowledge the role of BLP. Your continued response is the same. Please see: WP:BLP, WP:OFFICE, WP:OTRS, etc, for WMF's role in dealing with BLP matters. This is common sense and any rhetorical "play" at trying to claim that I suddenly accept your claim is false. That is like saying - if you don't provide proof that you aren't wrong in five minutes I will take it that you are wrong. If you do provide proof, I will pretend it is not proof. Therefore, it is inevitable that you will be wrong. Since this is what you attempted to do, I will now use it and thus you have no reason to bother responding because the rhetoric you rely on claims you wrong regardless of what you say or do. So, to boil it all down - 1. You have shown that you don't follow conversation time tables correct. 2. You rely on false rhetoric. 3. You seem to not understand Jimbo and the WMF's role in BLPs, which is sad. I, on the other hand do, as I have had direct experience with WMF and Jimbo in the matter at Wikiversity when we had a major problem dealing with BLP. 4. You have wasted everyone's time and constantly showed that you are unwilling to take the effort to get things correct. You are now at the end of my patience. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore what you state because the premise was flawed. Please read Wikipedia:OFFICE. Notice, while reading, this: "{{blp}}, {{db-attack}}, and {{db-copyvio}} templates have been established for the correction of these problems and are useful for this." Check out the BLP template. It is -very- clear that BLP is connected to the WMF. That has been proven beyond a doubt. If you question it again, I will ask Jimbo and I will refrain from answering you on the matter. He, or someone from the Foundation, can explain the relationship of the WMF and BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that you started slipping in the word "control". I do not use that word. I haven't used that word at all in this section. I stated that the current BLP policy is there -because- of WMF's duty in legal and ethical matters. There is a huge difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"in charge of BLP" Factually impossible. I never used the word. What I said was: "Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter". Definitions do not equal "in charge of". Now, I redirect you back to Wikipedia:OFFICE, at the bottom. Please notice that there are many statements that says "Jimbo says". They are put there for a reason. Since that reason is obvious, I wont assume you are stupid and provide the reason for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"If you mean that Jimbo somehow decides the definitions of BLP then frankly that's just silly:" Yet another time you are claiming I said something which I clearly did not. If you are going to post on my talk page, I'm going to ask you to stop making things up. It is offensive and goes against multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"why don't you spend 5 minutes writing out what authority and position you think Wales has" - I've already did this. However, I will give you two sentences. They will be the only two sentences I will provide, and I will not hold your hand. I have worked with Jimbo when he was using his role as part of the WMF and acting based on Office related BLP concerns which resulted in the banning of a long term member of a project. The reason why we listened to him, and the reason why he is quoted so often and on the very first line of the WP:BLP, is because he -knows- what is encyclopedically appropriate in both terms of legality and ethics and this comes not only from him being the founder of this whole system and community but also from his expertise in what it means to have a Wiki that deals with such issues. I will not tolerate anyone who says anything to minimalize Jimbo's expertise on the matter because there is almost no one that could possibly rival his expertise except for those who work with him on Office related issues, which are the pinnacle of BLP concerns on this encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you afraid to post on Jimbo's page? Don't say because there is also OTRS and other people. The ability for others to weigh in is not a justification -not- to post on Jimbo's page. Furthermore, OTRS members, along with other Foundation members and many other well respected community members would most likely also weigh in there. So, what is the excuse? Or is it because you know what Jimbo has stated before in his speeches about BLP, which are quoted on the BLP and the OFFICE page, that make it certain that he wouldn't support the same statements about BLP as you are claiming? Do you think he feels that Wikipedia should host allegations which make up the bulk of what is being discussed and the source of all of the "references" that are being used to claim the page is notable? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not afraid to post on his page and I am less than happy with your implication that I am. I don't think Jim's opinion is magically relevant." A makes B less believable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You have two sentences. The first is A. The second is B. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how he is currently being advised from his lawyers (per his talk page) on the matter, I don't think you can take any of his public comments on the matter any which way. That should have been obvious. This is not Sam Blacketer who had the luxury of not being hounded by lawyers over his actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"If the lawyers had any concern they would almost certainly tell him to just not comment." - "I just don't think I should publically comment on an article with relevance to an ongoing legal dispute." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you read what he even wrote? "I am not at all concerned about the BLP impact of this article on myself". That does not say "there is no BLP impact on myself". That clearly states that he doesn't care if it hurts him. BLP is to prevent issues. A person could be fine with someone else stabbing them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moral obligation of those in charge to prevent said stabbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"because he doesn't see there being any substantial BLP issue" And if he does go to court and is found guilty, would he still think that it was a great idea that Wikipedia hosted a page that conflated allegations with fact? And I think it is rather obvious why A and B in the above do not go together. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"he didn't see any factual errors" Allegations are not facts. He said nothing about half of it being devoted to pure allegation. Please stop playing with language like that. It is getting very old and very tiring. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"Blaming me for your lack of precision doesn't accomplish anything" A does not logically fit in with B is very precise. Now, "he'd rather have around in some form" - is patently absurd. Why? Because you equate something being hidden and not searchable (i.e. people stating to not index this) or something being kept on pages like the NPG with a public page that emphasizes him in an undue form. You are definitely adding things that are not there. Combined with your constant misquoting of me and your use of essays that say opposite of what you want, I am concerned. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"but frankly I'm concerned that you are so unwilling to admit you might possibly be incorrect " That is absolutely laughable. This whole time, I have pointed out statement after statement in which you misquoted, misread, and out and out got 100% wrong. You have no grounds to discuss right or wrong. You have been wrong at everything. "Do you have any evidence that he even knows that project space isn't searchable?" Would it even matter? He already made it clear that he would not say anything about keeping or deleting based on it being an ongoing legal matter. It is very clear that he will not say anything that could be used against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"'m also concerned that you can't seem to keep track of which part of which sentence is referring to what. The remarks about precision were in regard to your remark at 00:58" Really? Mr. "you need to be more precise" stated: "If you mean something then say it the first time". That sure seems rather vague. Take your own advice and maybe you wont look like a hypocrite. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aerotech Alloys

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aerotech Alloys, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerotech Alloys. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re BLP and all that

Hi JoshuaZ, I've just been reading some pages and I felt like I should be a little clearer regarding the intended meaning of my BLP comment in the recent AfD. That comment was not intended to refer to the article or its content, but to a personal philosophy; I am simply not concerned about the possibility that any Wikipedia article may reflect poorly on myself or my reputation. This relates to my views on open editing and the appropriate amount of trust that readers should invest in articles. Dcoetzee 05:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orly

Hi, JoshuaZ! How are you this evening? I am doing well. It's been a bit cloudy here in New England, but I took the puppy on a walk this afternoon and we had a great time! So regarding the message you left me on my talk page, I am genuinely curious about Orly's education. No one has yet added that section, so I was WP:BOLD and did so. I also added the appropriate tag of {{EmptySection}} , which is the right one to add in such a section. About it "looking ugly", well all I can say is that the article is a work in progress and it might not look terribly shiny for a little while. Just be patient- I am sure it will shape up soon. Thanks for writing, JoshuaZ! I really look forward to working with you on this aticle! Basket of Puppies 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

list of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Heinz Nawratil BLP

Hi, since you've commented on the BLP discussion on Heinz Nawratil (whether or not he can be described as an from the extreme right wing author who writes in Holocaust denial publications), [2] the discussion has expanded and I've added several new sources, so I though you might want to take another look. Thanks.radek (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Story / storey

See Wiktionary entries fof story and storey. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Teller (not the father of the atom bomb)

That's cool; I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The issue keeps coming up tough, so a bit of a discussion would be germane. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Hoagland

I noticed you reverted my deletion of references to Hoagland's website. Please refer to this in the talk page: Talk:Richard_C._Hoagland#Neutrality -- please comment here before reverting again. Tnx! Nasa-verve (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Prior dealings

Hey JZ. I'm trying to get caught up on all the dramaz and I just now noticed your Arbcom statement suggesting that Undertow and I had some connection "prior dealings". I was wondering where the various smear mongers who are running with the insinuation came up with it.

I don't have a great memory, but I don't think I ever interacted with the Undertow at all. Do you recall what gave you the impression that we interacted? Are there diffs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Until very recently I don't think I had ever heard of the Undertow. I'm being cautious in my phrasing because it's possible that I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty certain we never interacted. Law and I were on friendly terms and agreed and disagreed on various issues. I appreciate your good faith offer to correct the record. Unfortunately, there are those who use these type of circumstances to try and smear others. The extent to which the current controversy is being used to settle scores is pretty distressing. It also seems to me that there is a very short memory on wiki, because the Arb editing under a new account and socking issue was quite recent, and that account's history was never disclosed in RFA or Arb candidacies as far as I know. Anyway, I don't use IRC and seldom e-mail, so any collaboration I'm involved in should be pretty transparent. :) Let me know if you have any questions. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your willingness to correct teh record. Innocent mistakes happen and we all make mistakes. As I've been subject to campaign of smears and false rumors that are damaging to my reputation and hurt my ability to collaborate and wedit effectively with people who have false impressions, I'm a bit sensitive. But it's not the end of the world. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Prior dealings

Hey JZ. I'm trying to get caught up on all the dramaz and I just now noticed your Arbcom statement suggesting that Undertow and I had some connection "prior dealings". I was wondering where the various smear mongers who are running with the insinuation came up with it.

I don't have a great memory, but I don't think I ever interacted with the Undertow at all. Do you recall what gave you the impression that we interacted? Are there diffs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Until very recently I don't think I had ever heard of the Undertow. I'm being cautious in my phrasing because it's possible that I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty certain we never interacted. Law and I were on friendly terms and agreed and disagreed on various issues. I appreciate your good faith offer to correct the record. Unfortunately, there are those who use these type of circumstances to try and smear others. The extent to which the current controversy is being used to settle scores is pretty distressing. It also seems to me that there is a very short memory on wiki, because the Arb editing under a new account and socking issue was quite recent, and that account's history was never disclosed in RFA or Arb candidacies as far as I know. Anyway, I don't use IRC and seldom e-mail, so any collaboration I'm involved in should be pretty transparent. :) Let me know if you have any questions. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your willingness to correct teh record. Innocent mistakes happen and we all make mistakes. As I've been subject to campaign of smears and false rumors that are damaging to my reputation and hurt my ability to collaborate and wedit effectively with people who have false impressions, I'm a bit sensitive. But it's not the end of the world. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

DYK for I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier

Updated DYK query On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice article! Now, I don't want to join the army, I don't want to go to war. I'd rather hang around Picadilly underground, living off the earnings of a ....... dave souza, talk 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the real work (including realizing that we didn't have an article on the subject) was due to Durova. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I noticed that the illustration's excellent. . dave souza, talk 15:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Conservapedia and the adulteress

That's what I get for trusting Wikipedia! I took the citation to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church from the lead of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, so I have no idea what the source says. I shouldn't do that. I'll probably be able to check the Oxford book tomorrow, but in the meantime, I at least ascribed a weaker claim to it at Conservapedia. If it doesn't say most scholars agree about the passage, we'll have to change the main article on the subject as well. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So it turns out the short article in TODotCC doesn't say a word about how many scholars believe the Pericope Adulterae is genuine. However, I found two sources that say, surprisingly, the majority believe it's not.[1][2] I edited both Conservapedia and Pericope Adulterae accordingly. Thanks for pointing out my error.
  1. ^ "NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 139 on that page.
  2. ^ Keith, Chris (2008). "Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)". Currents in Biblical Research. 6 (3): 377–404. doi:10.1177/1476993X07084793.
—JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia V. Science

Is a link to the conservapedia article advocating baby shaking enough to prove their anti-science stance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.184.105 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

inre this diff...

No disrespect was intemded toward your fine work. I only wanted to address the fact that use of Wikinews was being discredited as a source by the nominator. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 19:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elementary proof

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Elementary proof. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary proof. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009


Your suggestion that I should be blocked for canvassing

Canvassing to swing votes etc is discouraged by WP, but Friendly Notices are not (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices). In the XfD for Euclid Farnham I sent 6 Friendly Notices to individuals and one to WikiProject Vermont. This is allowed and constructive behavior. Unfortunately I forgot to add the recommended notice to the discussion page, but that doesn't discount my actions from falling into the acceptable category of Friendly Notice. If I had approached people and asked for a keep vote that would have been another thing. You can verify all this by looking at my contribs. I ask you to look deeper than third party accusations in the future before suggesting other wikipedians are blocked! Mickmaguire (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • hold on - firstly as I said (but you don't want to believe) I was was balanced in it, but secondly it isnt a vote (votes don't count in an XfD, reasoned arguments do) - either the article warrants keeping or it doesn't. All they could do was argue one way or the other or amend the article to make it worth keeping. Why would this be unacceptable? Its not a majority vote - the argument has to have substantial evidence. I have pointed you to where Wikipedia clearly says what I did IS acceptable - THERE IS SUCH A THING AS ACCEPTABLE CANVASSING - why do you keep trying to say when I did this it wasn't? why do you keep accusing me of "clearly" doing something which actually there is no evidence for? Please don't bother to reply, I can see that this is going nowhere. Mickmaguire (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sig malfunction

Might want to fix your sig [3]. Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tengiz

Dubious material its stright from tengiz's mouth if you botherd to read the source....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.4.11 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

AfD nomination of Veropedia

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Veropedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Your kind words at Talk:Who is a Jew?

Thank you very much for your kind words at Talk:Who is a Jew?, deeply appreciate them. I do try very hard to adhere to the core wiki policies, albeit it difficult at times, and when that effort is recognized, it is both personally rewarding as well as the strongest impetus to continue. Thank you again, and, as always, if you see me drifting out of line, please drop me a note. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

EJF Revoked conversion

The response of the EJF is not online anymore, I will try to get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Transparency (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Littman afd

I know your "keep" was just a weak one, so thought I might mention that I've just now added many refs, and haven't even had a chance to populate the article with those from these articles and these books. The nomination reflects IMHO one of the more egregious failures to do a simple google search as suggested by wp:before before bringing an article to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you two e-mails. The first of them was a mistake. I regret my clumsiness; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Central Chabad Lubavitch Library

Are you sure that's it's real name? According the the site and other sources I saw, it's proper name is "Library Of Agudas Chassidei Chabad" (ספריית אגודת חסידי חב"ד). I never actually heard it being refered to as a "central library" (There is no formal Chabad Library system). Please reconsider, DGtal (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit overwrote someone elses'

[4]--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Undone again - you're overwtiting Cyclopia's edits.--Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


restores

Thanks for volunteering to reference Steve Collins (ski jumper), Johnny Doran (actor) and Matylda Damięcka, drop me a line when and if you are ready for another batch. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot!

Nice to see you again Joshua. In case no one has said this to you before, thanks for stopping by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. Best wishes, have a great week. Ikip 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From user talk ikip:
== Your remark ==

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but I'm at a loss as to what you think you are accomplishing by this remark. If the remark is made because I agree with some of what you have to say then it serves no purpose; reinforcing pre-existing views by simple repetition is at best unhelpful tribalism and promoting of groupthink. If you had some other purpose to this remark then it isn't clear to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of times I feel really down on wikipedia. I work really hard on an article, which is well sourced and meets all guidelines, and it is put up for deletion. Then someone writes something which cheers me up, and makes me smile, and it helps a lot, to make me feel better. A random of kindness, like the barnstar.
Again, thanks for your comments. I have seen you around before (honestly cannot remember the context, but I recall I have good feelings about your work). I hope this answers your question, I will watch your page for any response. Ikip 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have worked with Ben on other topics, not the topic you are talking about. I glanced through one of the copyright edit diff, and it seems trivial. I cannot speak for the other edit diffs. I have Bens page watchlisted, and was concerned when Lar jumped in, as we unfortunately have a history. Obviously Ben wants me to stay out of this now. I will unwatch his page and yours to try and deescalate the situation. Ikip 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

sure

okay. Ikip 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC/BLP

I was looking through the RFC and noticed that you supported the view by Power.corrupts twice, as numbers 16 and 46. It looks like the first support could have been a comment, or, as they were some time apart, you might have just forgotten that you had already supported. I'm not going to edit either of them, but I thought it would be good to let you know since it seems to have been accidental. --Opus 113 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Correcting that now. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, JoshuaZ. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Angel Monroe has been Speedy Deleted before and is being self-created

This is the second time this actress has created her own article. It was Speedily Deleted because at this time she is not notable. She may have an IMDb entry but that page is being self-editted by her from her pro account.--Morenooso (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally when a discussion is begun (like an article talkpage), it stays on the same page. I don't know if you edit actor pages but sometimes you need to look at the username to see if there are conflict of interests. Her username actress85 is a big tip-off as that is probably her real birth year.
I just saw your note flash across my other tabbed window. Please see Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. That's where the restrictions come in. Basic Bios still are the same however: you basically have to be or done something notable.
I have been interviewed several times both on tv and newspapers. I have been part of a local PBS piece and if I really wanted to could do everything she is to get my article here. The difference is that I don't have an ego that needs to be fed.
In time, maybe she will be famous but who knows?--Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"A person, who fails to meet these additional criteria, may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." So the Entertainers rule is an additional option. But yes, it seems clear that she doesn't meet notability at this time. Whether you do or don't and whether some people putting themselves here are doing it for ego reasons is a separate issue (I find it strange how some people try very hard to get Wikipedia articles and others seem to try very hard to not have Wikipedia articles. And sometimes the same person does both depending on the time and exact circumstances.) . JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the starting gate with the caveat you cited - they may be notable for other reasons. After a while, you get a feel for when people are self-publishing. You should have seen her first article. It really was unprofessional. Part of the reason people want an article here is that if it sticks, you are considered notable. Wikipedia has higher standards than Myspace, IMDB, etal. The standard line about notable people is - if you're notable, other people will write about you (I think Mark Twain said that).
In the case of some social-climbers (for lack of better words), more publicity is better. In the case of an actress looking to build up her portfolio, this would be big stuff.
As a New Page Patroller, I have a pretty good knack of spotting self-created pages. You can check my contribs to see two articles that got Speedily Deleted today because I spotted them. I know when to put the SD tag on. Trust me! --Morenooso (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
(Reset indent) BTW, don't know if you have the article on Watch, but a new user just popped up and removed the Speedy Delete tag that was placed by another user (I put the original tag on the first article and saw its re-creation). Another page patroller caught it and wanted to Speedy Delete it. The new user has a star biz type name and is probably a friend, colleague or agent. --Morenooso (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

cc

Hi I am so sorry I am not certain at all how to do the talk or respond. I hope i am doing this right and not messing up something. I apologize my actress friend sno e blac who was also in the film amaerican asian with me is on here and updated my page yesterday for me. and I guess it got deleted. I do not have a my theatrical resume on IMDB I just got a 15day trial for the pro account so thats why it looks blank like that lol. You can see me in 944 los angeles magazine. Makes and Models national magazine 3covers and cover 50 top models. and also Fhm. I am the spokes model for mwa. and also have just shot n international pageant dress catalog and cosemetic catalog . American Asian my independent film is airing internationally and set to be released in usa this year. Finale made best horror independent this year there is many references on this. also solved is on amazon and investigation networks. tlc.dicovery. I also did fight for fame for e. entertainment and human giant for mtv as well as worked with american idol corey clark on vh1. I hosted Hollywood show with paris hilton. and just signed with a exclusive film agency. I hope this helps. someway copys of most of the movies clips and magazines are online. and I will be doing a show on oxygen this month. Thank You again. I apologize for any inoconvience as I am not sure how to exactly use this or what to do. Obviously I am not as smart as the editors and patrols on here. Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actress1985 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Arcuri

Thanks for taking a look at it. Woogee (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Randall Munroe of xkcd

Hi, JoshuaZ, I saw your interview to Randall Munroe on Wikinews. I am a member of Wikimedia Italia, the Italian chapter of the WMF. We are about to organise an event in Italy about "digital freedom" and we would like to invite him to tell his story as a successful author using free licenses. We tried to contact him through his site (press at xkcd.com address) but we haven't yet received an answer. Maybe you have some sort of more "direct" contact? Can you help us? please answer me in my Italian Wikipedia user talk page (in english, naturally ;) ). Thanks in advance for your time. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your answer. I contacted him circa a week ago, so... I'll wait :) -- CristianCantoro (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Meyer

Please have a look at this recent insertion, imo, a bit poor, excessive pov and details and a link to some front page of a protest organisation, I have removed it twice and asked them to talk but they are not chatty, the citations are in line links, let me know if your not watching this article, ta. [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Joyce_Meyer&action=history here.} Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, possible repeat performance on the horizon, but lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
They repeated the edits, I have reverted to your edit. all the edits served the purpose of portraying the subject in a more negative light, they are also a big fan of rick ross anti cult site and keep adding links to his site which is not wikipedia reliable. Tiresome, perhaps she the devil in disguise, what brought me to this article, was there a OTRS ticket or just a complaint at the BLPN? I have left the editor a note about policy and invited them to discuss, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

WP:NPOV

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth.

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost two sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - more experienced eyes are good. This is the third area I have come across recently where consensus is claimed by a more enthusiastic editor when evidence for this is really rather thin. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very busy right now. I'll try to take a look at this later today. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a group of editors who want to eliminate ASF policy. They claim there is no policy on facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is one POV-pushing editor who has decided that the way to win his conflicts at the Chiropracty article is to rewrite Wikipedia policy. There is no "ASF" policy. There is an NPOV policy. "ASF" was one editor's attempt to explain NPOV. Some people get the point, but it is worded ambiguously so some people find it confusing. The only question is, how best to explain and comply with the NPOV policy. Fabricating new policies (especially in a feeble attempt to manipulate an edit conflict) is NOT the way to help matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, please strike all of your false statements you made against me including the misleading parts of the comment you made above. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I never rewrote NPOV policy but other editors have drastically rewrote NPOV policy and have eliminated ASF policy. I assume they prefer IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You may found that they have not rewritten NPOV policy. But they have rewritten the NPOV policy page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a page called NPOV but where did the NPOV policy go? Do you prefer the elimination of ASF that explains facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, JoshuaZ. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Your POV edit in Circumcision

I don't believe you realize that you placed this silly sentence:

  • The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[13][14]

as a new (ending Introduction!) paragraph in the article (Circumcision) lead.

The paragraph doesn't belong in the lead. HIV in the lead should be as a short sentence in in the third paragraph (controversy). The information in the paragraph isn't particularly relevant (public health benefits are limited to regions of very high incidence, ie only So Africa with respect to Wiki readers); the populations limitations of the findings are not conveyed; the three you say "sourced content" is actually two publications, thus exagerated; the dates are very unusual for wiki or the article, thus exagreating their importance; the same information is properly in the body of the article.

Please help make the article neutral. At least do not obstruct progress. Please participate in discussion.Zinbarg (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Doria

I would be among the ones opposing your proposal to change... I think historically the admiral is FAR more important that the ship. Ciao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Thank you!

Thank you!

JoshuaZ - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Admin?

Hey there, I was about to give you the reviewer right because I saw you among the rollbacker user group but then I noticed in the user rights log that Essjay made you a sysop in 2006, and that you have a successful RfA, and yet you're not listed as being an admin.. I dont understand, are you still an admin? did you get de-adminned at some point? or do "old" admins not show up in the log? -- Ϫ 01:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am no longer an admin. However, I won't say no to having the reviewer right. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- Ϫ 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

please vote

here Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010


AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

both

Hi, would you please clarify your comment as to in what way this is possible one can be both Jewish and an atheist - Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActuallyRationalThinker (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, this "warning" seems ill-considered to me. Joshua made a single revert, and commented on the talk page some two hours before this warning was given. It would be a real stretch to describe that as edit warring, let alone failure to collaborate. Jakew (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning to Jayjg

Why would you know or care if I made such a mistake? One conclusion is that you regularly collude with 'Jay'; perhaps you are Jay. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Traffic visualizer

Hey there, good seeing you yesterday. The tool we were talking about is at http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/. If you have any feature suggestions, let me know! Best, Emw (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#When_is_an_attack_page_not_an_attack_page.3F. Corvus cornixtalk 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A completely straight, honest, question. What things would, under your criteria, be attacks? Corvus cornixtalk 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I've wrote. Any of this sort of content if it had no other content would be an attack page. Attack page is a technical term for what is included under G10. G10 has a specific set of wording that it must be "entirely negative in tone and unsourced"- if you think this condition shouldn't be there then the place to discuss that is at the CSD talk page to change the wording. Whether something fits my intuition for what I'd like to call an attack page is utterly irrelevant to what the term means under speedy deletion criteria. If it helps, try to distinguish between two definitions of attack page, attack_page_1 which is the criterion as laid out in the CSD and attack_page_2 which is whatever captures our intuition about what should constitute an attack page. We'd probably like attack_page_1=attack_page_2. If there's a problem with that the solution is to change the wording of attack_page_1. But the place to discuss that isn't AN or ANI because those aren't the pages where we revise policies and guidelines. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So in other words, an attack is whatever you think it is, and nobody else can possibly know your mind. Corvus cornixtalk 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No. I suspect that our communal intuition on the term could be hashed out. You clearly consider that this page falls under attack_page_2 and I'm inclined to agree with that intuition. If we agree there, we need to modify attack_page_1. Since we are in agreement there, we can mosy over to WT:CSD to talk about changing that. The most obvious thing to do would be to change "is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" to remove the word "entirely" which seems to be the main way in which attack_page_1 disagrees with attack_page_2. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

User: Noleander

You summed up the last AN/I discussion; I just opened a new one here, thought you might have a useful comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Curious about something you said

Joshua, you recently said something involving me that made me curious. Here at the Noleander Workshop [5], you referred to me as "her". I'm not saying you were right and I'm not saying you were wrong, and please understand that I am not in any way unhappy about your saying it, nor complaining to you about it in any way. But I'm reasonably sure (?) that you and I have never met in real life, and I make it a point to never state my gender (nor various other personal characteristics) on-Wiki, and prior to your comment, there has only been one other editor who consistently refers to me as female. So it just seemed unexpected that you would have said that. I trust you won't mind my asking: what led you to say that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I get the impression that you are female but to be honest your writing style isn't very feminine so I don't think that is it. I may have seen someone refer to you using female pronouns at some point, but if so I don't have any recall of who it was. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clearing that up. I was a little worried that it might have come from where you found out about the Washington Post thing. I'm glad it was no big deal. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Talkback

Hello, JoshuaZ. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Thank you

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And another thanks for a different section of that page

I want to send about 1000 thanks for your comment on the "Soylent Green is people" thread. I have seen many different things at ANI over the years but that thread is one of the weirdest ever. Your comment summed things up brilliantly and it brought a smile to my face. I wonder if that kind of fishing expedition will ever wind up on "Deadliest (or Dumbest) Catch" :-) Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Talkback

Please see Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Jimbo's comment. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Combined statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Dan Savage

Hi Josh, two questions for you here in case you didn't see them. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

SORRY about the Arbitration form

Hi Joshua, I'm sorry about the form I really thought it was overlaying what I wrote, I didn't realize I was destroying the content. I would love to not have to go to arbitration by the way but I don't know what else to do. I am trying to add a simple fact to the Big Red Movie page of which I had supporting documentation but he kept removing it. I have tried communicating with him and he just doesn't respond. So if you have any ideas how I can block him from removing valid information please let me know. I would prefer a simpler solution too!! THanks for letting me know I was messing up the form, I am new here. (Sandots (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Your suggestion

Hi Josh. Given your indication of willingness to take another look at the AfD upon the presentation of more refs, I've added a couple of dozen here. Its not exhaustive as to what is out there, but was (as I indicated), sufficient for me so I've stopped for the moment. Given your comment, I thought I would let you know that I had followed up on it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Tx for taking that second look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Riverside County

JoshuaZ, I understand your confusion. Let me try and clear it up. Riverside County is a Republican stronghold. It was always going to be a Republican going to the California State Senate. Of the three candidates in the Republican primary, one, Jeff Stone, was particularly disfavored. See [6] for why. Hence, Dickson and Anderson (who had the best chance of beating Stone, and in the end did) were preferred. Similar with Monserrate and Peralta: [7][8]. Make sense now? This was not about party politics. It was about individuals' stance towards that group. Cheers, --JN466 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You've made something of a marginally plausible argument. It still seems extremely conspiratorial. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't have made it if these articles hadn't been so extremely puffy. Look at the tags in them now. Jose Peralta was on two Wikimedia projects' main pages in the week before election day (March 16). All week on Wikiquote, and three days before the election in Wikipedia. It's not a coincidence, is it. "Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of." --JN466 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And I will just note that the article's lead states, "The book received positive reviews, and its recipes were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004.". "Its recipes". That does not sound like one, or two, or several, it sounds like all of them to most people. And that's in the lead. --JN466 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What you may not understand is that seeing one case like this, you go, Huh, so what. Once you've seen twenty, it becomes sucky. And once you've seen a hundred, you get fed up. --JN466 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

WikiBombing

I saw it on the willage pump policy, man. Brad Wingo (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

RFArbitration

Hi, as I have never been a named party in a RF arbitration I am unsure if itsd needed but I will let you know anyway - I have added a response to your comment here - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

DYK for SN 1961V

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello JoshuaZ. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Akin AfD debate

I think your vote was struck out by you by mistake. You might want to look at it. Casprings (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi JoshuaZ! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuaZ/Archive_11&oldid=1166522640"