This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. I responded at Talk:Extirpation. Jkelly 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Added some new info on Zamia; I altered the ref format a little, but feel free to change it back. Guettarda 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you because I've noticed that you have pitched in to improve the article. Gracias Hermano Tony the Marine 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm spamming everybody with my latest brainwave. Sign-up today and get set of dish towels. Marskell 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You (I think, I'm new to Wikipedia) removed my new section on Symbolism in the Watchmen graphic novel. Granted, it was short but I had just started. Any particular reason or was that article absolutely perfect before I saw it?

THE CITATIONS ARE THE WATCHMEN BOOK ITSELF. DO YOU WANT PAGE NUMBERS OR SOMETHING?

Congrats on that "little star"! Marskell 21:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, great work. I, for some reason, wasn't watching this page and had no idea the amount of work going into it. Congrats! --liquidGhoul 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, congrats. Good job on the article. Guettarda 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as A-Class is concerned, WP:MILHIST has a fairly stringent formal process for assigning the rating; it's not appropriate for FARCed articles, in most cases, due to the fact that those articles must have had major problems to lose the FA rating in the first place. Hence, B-Class is the default level to which removed FAs go.

As far as the role of the GA is concerned, it's an issue that's been debated to death, and is more a function of GA's insertion into a scheme not designed for it than anything else. Kirill Lokshin 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (I think WP:TROP also has a formal procedure for A-Class ratings, but I'm not sure whether any of their ariticles have been defeatured yet.) Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of usefulness. Just only to me. lol. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 06:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please revert Zaph's recent edist before protecting the article. He removed the only cited section in the whole article (the definitions section) and replaced the intro with POV garbage. You are teaching him that he can get his way be starting edit wars and threatening other users. Timelist 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least revert back to the last version by Jossi who is another administrator. He removed the only cited section from the article. He can't be reasoned with. The talk page is full of him going on dogmatic rants and making personal attacks.

By not reverting you're endorsing Zaph's threats and intimidations and you're saying it's okay to remove entire cited sections. Zaph's personal attacks and confrontational edit summaries are against wikipedia policy. Why is he tolerated?

NO, he is not going to violate Wikipolicy to suit your needs. It seems that whenever black people are involved, exceptions to the rule IS the rule. They didn't revert to my position when it was protected before, no reason to change the rules now. I am tolerated for the same reason EO is tolerated. I am tolerated for the same reason you are tolerated. Despite the fact I CITE wiki policy and I clearly articulate it when I take my positions, you just simply reply "but you're wrong," with no serious anything to back it up. In fact your statement By not reverting you're endorsing Zaph's threats and intimidations and you're saying it's okay to remove entire cited sections. is an endorsement of your own bias. Heck you don't even SIGN your comments. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You listed Hemidactylus mabouia as native (or rather, you didn't list it as introduced). The article calls it "native to sub-Saharan Africa" (which is supported by a source that looks ok), and I know it to be cosmopolitan, so my guess is that it is introduced. Guettarda 13:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not minor at all... maybe to someone who has no knowledge in the subject... but the first thing people will see when they get onto the page is the map and it is WRONG... I think that qualifies for the accuracy tag. As I said I would fix it if I knew how.. but I dont , all I can do is warn the misled user 222.155.21.111 19:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained the inaccuracy on the discussion page of the related article

Hi. See my response to the anon user here - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But I did provide sources .. I just dont know where to find them online... a source doesnt have to be online does it? 222.155.21.111 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also wouldn't the three revert rule apply to you reverting my tags constantly?222.155.21.111 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be an idiot and a fuckhead on here who thinks you can peddle your own shit while hiding behind a username... you edits are POV and biased, stop it or else I will have you banned. 222.155.21.111 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooooooh think you are a big man huh.. banning me for no reason ... i din vandalise... in fact i helped keep watch on FA page and revert vandalisms... don't stop useful contributors just because you have personal issues222.155.21.111 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But shouldn't the three revert rule apply to whom ever is reverting my changes also? 222.155.21.111 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you keep quiet when you are proven wrong eh? ... stop abusing admin power ... how do I report you? 222.155.21.111 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My ban does not allow me to edit on Alberto Fujimori, but it does not involves any other pages. Besides, there is not a single prove that Fujimori has that ammount of money. That list is clearly POV, and your revert based only in the argument that I'm banned clearly avoids to answer. I'm reverting the page until you can provide evidence that support that biased claim. Messhermit 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello friends, working here on wikipedia is all new to me and I am learning how to get around and how to edit and write articles. I enjoy writing articles on the subject matter of the Taino Native American Indians of Puerto Rico. I am sure that, I will be making some type-o in reguards to the html text coding that is used here on Wikipedia, but I am sure that some kind people will be able to help me along in my quest to contribute some good articles. Japerez 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you cross out the word "comment" that you placed earlier on Barnard's Star FAC page, so it is clear you now support? Thank you -- ¢² Connor K.   19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i do not think anybody will be able to support that claim. it is simply not true. on the other hand i am showing you supporting evidence (the report) of the fact that Puerto Rico as of today can only govern itselve "internally", "and on matters of purely local concerns" (certainly thats not an independent country). I am also showing you evidence of the fact that we are an unincorporated organized US territory according to that report, the report also explains the powers Congress reserves regarding to Puerto Rico. (hey that does not mean i like it, its just the way it is). one last thing i am not erasing other POV's, am just supporting with evidence one POV, in fact they are not mutually exclusive views, i mean it is true that we entered into a voluntary relation with US, and it is also true that they ambigously called it "in the nature of a compact" -whatever that means-. Basically, we voluntary accepted (in 1952) to be an unincorporated organized US territory, with the power to govern ourselve only "internally", "and on matters of purely local concerns". vjperez talk

Please excuse me - I have just learned how to properly insert a footnoted reference and am just going through my recent entries and attempting to fix them. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you are not happy with the results. John Hill 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you send me an email with the papers you need I should be able to send you back the pdfs. --Peta 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joel,

Your recent revert on Tyrannosaurus is most welcome. Thank you. User:LightningPower has now twice made the unsourced claim that theropods used their "whip-like tails" to "wrap their prey". In fact, theropod tails have been proved to be quite stiff, and couldn't have been used like that at all. Thanks for your swift action; I've left a note for this user. Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Joel, I see you are from Puerto Rico. So, why are you willing to refer to the coqui as loud (100 dB with no reference to distance in the article)? And why are you keeping our website out(www.Hawaiiancoqui.org), accepting the hear.org propaganda completely? Don't you like coquis?

Joel - You have restored the original unieldy article. It seems that you have not bothered to read the previous discussion on splitting the article, and you did not participate in the discussion prior to the split. You have also restored all the "irrelevant info". How would you sugest splitting?

Syrenab 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Joelito, because you write and review so many biology articles, can you have a look at this (what I believe should be a) proposal, which is currently labeled as a guideline for science projects, based in input only from math and physics? Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines My concern is that it hasn't been exposed to all "science" projects, and is currently mislabeled as both a "guideline" and "scientific". As you know, biology and medical articles are extensively cited, so I'm not clear any of this applies to us, and it needs careful review before being considered a guideline in the entire realm of scientific articles. Sandy (Talk) 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joel

Yesterday you informed me of false interpretation of where the boundaries of South America and North America,refering to the Caribbean nations.As a training geologist i would say that the continents are not divided politically,but rather on which continental plate the nation is sitting on. You are correct to think that most Caribbean islands are in North America but another article on wikipedia clearly contradicts this.The 'islands ' category claims that Trinidad & Barbados sit on the South American continental shelf which is correct,The caribbean plate ends on the curve of the islands by Grenada and St Vincent,west of the South American plate which created the islands of Barbados and Trinidad due to collision of the two plates.This is visible by the awkward position of Barbados and Trinidad compared to other Caribbean nation which the two are miles east of the Windward islands formation.So in Political terms-yes,Barbados is in North America but geologically in South America.Countries such as Egypt perhaps remain in the same situation:Politically-Middle eastern,Geologically-African and Hawaii-politically North American,geologically-Pacific.I noticed that if Trinidad is South American,Barbados should be classed South American too as it sits on the South American ridge. 27 OCT 2006

Hi. I've never requested peer review before, so I'm not too sure that I'm doing it right. I listed a new request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/American Crow. Is this the right course to take? Should I have left it as an assessment request? Any guidance you can give would be appreciated. Thanks! Elliskev 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to report, that fresh out of the recent one week block, and User:Instantnood immediately goes about reverting articles which caused the block, [1], [2], plus other long-disputed articles [3]. He is probably on the way in reverting other articles. I certainly hope something more effective can be done in respect to the ArbCom decisions other than me having to revert all of them and inviting yet another round of blocks. Thanks.--Huaiwei 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to know if you actually noticed what my edits to the airline destinations article were, and what user:Huaiwei was doing towards my edits. :-| — Instantnood 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to repeat yourself if you are ignored. Anyone can clearly see that you breached the 3RR, and yet you are the one whining about injustice. I gamely accepted the ban, for I know the purpose of the 3RR. Do you need another reminder that content disputes do not justify your revert warring? And "correcting over-reverts" do not justify revertions either? You can continue to think of excuses, but thankfully there are plenty of intelligent folks around to see through your actions.--Huaiwei 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to respond on your talk page Joel. But it's important to note that, it's never "revert-warring" to restore the edits that the editor himself/herself cannot explains. Furthermore there's little evidence anybody ever breaches the 3RR rule with that article. [4] — Instantnood 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

First, try justifying that revert warring is permissable for all "unexplained edits". Shall wikipedia go about establishing such a policy? Are you keen to propose and defend it? Second, try explaining why you did not breach the 3RR ruling.--Huaiwei 14:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied by email. Guettarda 16:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Vanessa Williams photo is not in the public domain therefore this entire assemblage cannot be in the public domain. Joelito (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will remove her and replace it with something, can you suggest a public domain image? and how do i access it again to upload the new file.--Halaqah 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good morning! Well, it wasn't a joke sir. I truly feel that its an educational and compelling article. It can make you a better person if you get to know it. Did you read it? Please have more confidence in my tastes sir. Policratus 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You moved P!nk to Pink (singer) per consensus at talk page. One person has taken on herself to just undo the move despite consensus. I have no idea what kind of complaint to make about that or how to keep it from happening. Wryspy 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Invasion is a weasly POV word. Puerto Rico had tried it's own uprising against Spain, we liberated them and brought them freedom.

Most definitely a Weasel word, I'm not wikilawyering, you're inserting obvious POV.

I guess it would be far to much to ask you too, oh I don't know, LOOK AT MY EDIT. I didn't undo anything, or even make any changes, I just dropped in a comment to continue the discussion. As for undoing edits, YOU are the one doing so, pushing your blatent POV.

Yes, every single history book I've seen mentions the liberation of Puerto Rico. As to how it can be liberated and neither a state nor a country, that is because the people of Puerto Rico decided to become a Commonwealth in free association, and the UN recognizes them as being liberated as they are not on the list of non-self governing territories. Statehood has been offered to Puerto Rico in the past, and likely will in the future.

Like it or not they are liberated, and no, saying we liberated them is no more POV than saying France was liberated from the Germans.

Joel, I just wanted to thank you for all the work and effort which you put into the "Military history of Puerto Rico". Thanks to you, the article has maintained its featured status. Tony the Marine 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on WP FAC West Wycombe Park, I've attempted to address your concerns, perhaps you could have another look. Giano 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epa, Joelito, you left Milgram at WP:FAR :-) Sandy (Talk) 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I ignored the advice before since those were the same people saying we didn't need inline citations. Ok, I'll definitely slow down :) Judgesurreal777 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since agreeing with us, the Judge hasn't edited since. LuciferMorgan 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too - Wikipedia needs all the good editors it can get. LuciferMorgan 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, where's the rule that says that articles cannot be reviewed if they're on the main page? Do you plan on readding the templates tonight when it's gone? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For your copyedit of my articles. History of Solidarity which you edited recently is a FAC nominee (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity) - perhaps you'd like to comment upon it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. How long do we have to wait? It never should have been on the Main Page in that condition. Daniel Case 14:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joel. For personal reasons, my editing is going to drop off for a time. I know it's a bit laborious, but just make sure the FARs get moved between sections at a reasonable pace. I'll be stopping in to look at the page from time-to-time. Cheers, Marskell 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Epa, Joelito, are you around? I'm worried that neither you nor Marskell may be around, and there are four FARs that are overdue to move down. Let me know if I should learn how to do that part, in case we get in a pinch (no, I won't ever try to close a FARC :-) Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That was fast ! Sandy (Talk) 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joel, I didn't do the notifications on Wikipedia:Featured article review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy, because it looks more like a case for dispute resolution or Request for Comment than for FAR. I'll hold off until you opine whether I should notify. Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some discussion at User talk:Derex. Sandy (Talk) 16:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that people are replacing the image to the article, stating that taking it down was vandalism. I would revert, but I may violate 3RR. --Strothra 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please put back the photo you removed. I put in a photo of a Kenyan for now but we need a photo of a West African since we already have that huge photo of the Ethiopians near the top. Editingoprah 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you read the scholarly journals, the advocates for H Floresiensis being a seperate species are in the minority. I don't mean any offense to you sir, am I not correct in saying that the evidence points to it being a community of "developmentally abnormal individual, being microcephalic?"

- Eaton

No, you are not correct. We do not make evaluations of evidence in this encyclopedia. We summarize and write what other people have concluded based on the evidence. Our own opinions on the matter should not bias our writings. This is the basis of WP:NPOV. Joelito (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment wasn't meant as nasty or anything - I just thought some of the FARs were dead in the water that's all. LuciferMorgan 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have my top secret sources! Guettarda 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you were helpful in the last peer review I put in, if you have a spare moment or two could you spare them to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thylacine/archive1. I've rewritten the Thylacine article and would appreciate any input. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, don't feel obliged if you are too busy - I just want to clear up as much as possible before going to FAC. Yomangani^talk 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your recent actions on the FARC front. Andre (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My complaints are several: a) that the change from FAR to FARC was not properly announced and advertised, b) that many of the issues are either dubious or were indeed addressed, but that this has not been fully discussed, and c) few of those from the FAR discussion carried over to the FARC discussion and their viewpoints as far as consensus goes are not completely clear. As for the rollback, that is my error. Andre (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Andre, by reverting all of Joel's edits, a bookkeeping nightmare is created: please refrain until this is settled with Joel - that will make it easier all round. I'm restoring Joel's edits. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Joel, I think I got everything back in place: Featured articles, Former Featured articles, the article and its talk page. The count at Former Featured articles was off, so I fixed it. Sandy (Talk) 20:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a puppet of a puppet of a puppet. You'll never catch me unless you divine who I really am. Hint: ask sugaar the Spanish Basque. Ha ha ha.--TheBeggar'swatchmaker 14:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

could you please explain why you deleted my article (Philip Le Claire)? I am brand new and do not understand why you felt it necessary. Thank you.

hello, for the meadows article, this is the community in which i live, there is a school here, which is named templeton academy, the names i put on there are actual people (its our alias') for we do not want our actual names divulged, as for mcivers that is also a community, which is overlooked by a large mountain called blomidon mountain, which a man who legally changed his name to batman resides on.

why did u dleete my thing

Dear Joel, I would thank you NOT to delete my article half way through me developing it. I'm only thirteen, and I use wikipedia a lot. So I thought I'd put my band on it. It seems, because people can't type fast, we have to suffer. In case you forgot, the page was Matanza (band). Take things into consideration and read the guidelines for speedy deletion. It states that you should not delete pages soon after initiation. I think ten minutes is soon after, don't you? -- User:Jacklonergan, 28th November 2006.

P.S. I also noticed a similar comment above mine. That doesn't look good to me. Be a little less trigger happy in future.

Just wanted to make sure you've seen User:Marskell. Sandy (Talk) 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nuking that thing. While the page was still present, someone opened an AfD on it...could you please close it? DMacks 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

hello joelr31. if an international team of researchers, including one scientist who worked on the initial study, now say no evidence supports the theory that so-called "hobbit humans" ever existed. why then does the tone of the Homo floresiensis article act as if it is indeed a new species? 1Okuda1 20:20 29 November 2006