Jump to content

User talk:Joshuaingram/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

It's so boring here. Someone needs to comment...

 Done :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That was great! Joshua Ingram (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies talk 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Template:Article creation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Ingram

Old Time Baptist article

Try to use the Template:Cite book. If you still have problems, send me a message with the template as filled in as possible, and indicating a diff in which the template didn't work, and I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Premature closure

I think your closure of mediation on Barney Frank was premature. LadyofShalott 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah man. Don't be so hard on yourself. You're dealing with difficult people who have been feuding over the same stuff for weeks. Solomon himself couldn't solve the dispute in day. (Although the guidelines are really pretty clear and the edits needed fairly obvious, as your analysis and most other people's makes clear). Your reference to the study was a bit awkward, but otherwise your comments were mostly reasonable. At least you could stick around until we're done beating on you? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, would it be ok if I was assist you in mediating this case? PhilKnight (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvation

Lets deal with this at Talk:Salvation, IYDM. -Stevertigo 06:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the barnstar. And don't think anything about requesting some input from me. I'm not the best writer myself, so I spend a lot of time doing the other tasks. Believe me, it's an honor to be able to help those doing the fundamental work of wikipedia, which is the articles.

For what it's worth, the article is now at I think a sufficient quality level that any further input on how to improve it would probably be best gotten through a formal peer review, and then maybe leaving messages on the talk pages of the Christianity projects for input. But the article looks a lot better than a lot of others I've seen. Good work. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

You honestly caught me a bit by surprise there. Having said that, I'm guessing I know at least a little about some of what you're interested in, so I might be useful. It's your call, though. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's really not that much too adoption per se. The one physical change, as such, is maybe you adding to your userpage this template:

This user has been adopted by John Carter.

Then just basically contact me when anything comes up. I'll keep your talk page watched, so that I can see if there are any questions arising I might be able to help with. But it's fine by me. You've already been a benefit to the effort here, and I have every reason to believe that you will continue to be. Contact me, either on the talk page or through e-mail, which you should be able to see in the toolbox along the side, whenever anything comes up. Glad to work with you. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Waterboarding

Hi. In the future, I would recommend avoiding calling other users "closed-minded assclowns"; it's an obvious violation of WP:NPA. Cheers, --Akhilleus (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say that he does have a point there. Lord knows, sometimes it's really difficult to not say what we really want to about others. There are a few parties in an arbitration case I'm currently involved in who I honestly think deserve to be mentioned in much stronger language than I am using, or, for that matter, almost ever use. But that would definitely tend to make them less than charitably inclined toward me in the future. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re: medcab

Hi, thanks for dropping me a message. We don't have many mediators, so thank you for volunteering :-)

Mediation is very learn-as-you-go; in time, you may find it to be a bit like chess. That sounds cynical, but you'll find that many editors basically play disputes by guessing ahead what the replies are going to be so they can gain initiative. You'll see this a lot; or, at any rate, you'll see how it could've been "played" better, and thus gain your own initiative. Please forgive my gaming metaphor, but it's apropos.

Gaining initiative as a mediator is very important; you rarely start with it. It's extremely difficult to get editors to come to a consensus/compromise on content on your first go. It's easier to start on conduct. After all, your main purpose is to get the parties to talk civilly with each other so they can improve the article. Then you can leave and check back in now and again (never expect - or even try - to be the party named responsible for getting the good stuff done in content disputes).

Here's what's worked for me:

First of all, avoid going head-to-head against an editor (never appear to, at any rate). It puts yourself in a position to be attacked, which you don't want. Don't admit to fault that isn't yours; if it is your fault, you're doing something wrong ;-). Also, don't expect editors to follow your setup on an article talk page; you can expect and request that on the case page, but otherwise it's you who begins at their whim and not the other way around, and that's fine too.

It's best to present yourself as assuming good faith, even when you're not. Always expand on NPOV, V, etc, instead of linking to the pages or copy/pasting policy; it makes you more human. And again, don't go head-to-head against an editor's interpretation of policy unless their position is weak vis-a-vis the other editors.

Lastly, never "go native" in a dispute, and don't take anything personally (by the time you ought to, the editor should be at WQA or worse). Anything you want to suggest should have a consensus rationale, and you want to depend on at least one party from both sides agreeing with your suggestion. Never present an opinion as personal, because once it's personalized, it's POV. Agreeing (or edging around agreement) with one side of a polemical content dispute automatically names you as a party to some folks, and that loses you a ton of mediatorial capital. If it looks like you've lost too much, you can always set the case back to new and leave a few notes for the next mediator.

In your case, I suggest going to the RS noticeboard for the sources being discussed. It's good to take advantage of all the wiki has to offer. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Also: if you have to suggest sources, they have to be from a source that everyone would have to regard as reliable else they be seen as unreasonable. A good strategy is to weed out the unreasonable and obstinate editors, like separating wheat from chaff.

FairTax

Joshuaingram, just so you are aware, I removed the blog post (hence the formatting issues) that was added to the FairTax talk page by TaxSanity. I hardly ever delete posts, but this one is being posted all over the web. The guy is just placing his rant where ever he can (and it's not very accurate to boot). The talk page is for discussing the article, not spam... so I removed it (along with your post in reply). To your point though, the Tax Panel study is included and referenced heavily in the article. Morphh (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not time wasted if you learned something from it. So don't feel too bad. :-) Morphh (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Joshuaingram! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Does anyone know of a userbox that says, "This user is running out of things to do on Wikipedia...suggestions?" I am getting to that place. Joshua Ingram 04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Joshuaingram! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Yeah, if you're an admin like me, you can find out by just typing in the name and seeing if the edit history indicates a deletion. You have any particular articles in mind? :) John Carter (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There was one, but I think it was deleted because it was effectively a definition of the term rather than an encyclopedia article. You can see it here. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
==Unfinished Sourcing==

Unless you're going to finish sourcing this, please don't touch it.

Beck has authored five books since 2003.

The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland was published by Pocket Books in 2003.[1] An Inconvenient Book was published by Simon and Shuster in 2007.[2] This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the week of December 9, 2007.[3] The Christmas Sweater was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008.[4] This book was #1 on the New York Times Bestseller for the weeks of November 30, 2008, and December 25, 2008. America's March to Socialism: Why We're One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades is an audiobook that was published by Simon and Shuster in 2008. An Unlikely Mormon, The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck was published by Deseret Book in 2008 (DVD)[5]. Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-Of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of July 4, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/17/09). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government was published by Simon and Shuster in 2009. This book is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller, beginning the week of September 30, 2009, and currently retains that position (10/8/09).

  • Glenn Beck is one of the few people to hit #1 on the New York Times New York Times Bestseller List in three separate categories: Hardcover Non-Fiction (Arguing with Idiots and An Inconvenient Book), Paperback Non-Fiction (Common Sense), and Hardcover Fiction (The Christmas Sweater).

Beck is also the publisher of Fusion Magazine, which is a play on the slogan of the The Glenn Beck Program, "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment."

Books

There is a works section for the list. Please see Wikipedia:Layout. Did you include the image also? I was thumbing it and realized there was not a Fir Use Rationale for the specific article. Apologies for frustrating you. Can you think of any way to include the information without it being a list converted into a wall of text?Cptnono (talk)

I restored it for now since it is workable. It looks like it should be tightened up. Made comment on the discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh...

No worries. After rereading the complete conversation it is some funny stuff.Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Media

Have a look at the article's talk page; there's a discussion about copyright happening there.

In short, Conservapedia reserves the right to cancel its licence; that means that Wikipedia cannot assert CC-BY-SA 3.0 for the content you imported. Because of that, we can't use it. TheFeds 02:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment here...

...made me laugh. I'm guessing you missed the mother of all AfDs. BTW I also offered a keep comment. Take care :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to read. Were you laughing at me, or did you think it was funny? Joshua Ingram 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And you weren't kidding about that AfD. Jesus, and I thought the political talk pages were bad! Joshua Ingram 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no I wasn't laughing at you. It was just I got a chuckle out of "no one is trying to delete that article" given how seriously 100 or so editors tried to do just that. As I said, I agreed with your actual point about the article. :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arguing with Idiots. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you had waited, I would have explained that it's not vandalism, and therefore doesn't circumvent the 3RR. It's a content dispute. You need to discuss with the user and come to a consensus, not accuse them of vandalism or of being "a moron", which is considered a personal attack. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joshuaingram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After looking into it a little more, I realize that I was taking what Jimintheatl was saying a little out of context. What appeared to me to be an ideological attack on the book was probably just a small correction to what he thought was a more neutral statement (regarding the "Issues Discussed" section), and his opinion--I say, "his opinion," based on the fact that his edit was never sourced--on Beck's statement regarding Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution (regarding the "Criticism" section). I admit that I did not give Jim enough credit to put any thought into what he said, and while I have no excuse, I will say that my reason is because there have been too many people that want to inject their own personal opinions, about everyone in general, and about Beck in particular, into the pages of an encyclopedia whose main tenet is neutrality. I was out of line, and I admit that. Whether or not I am unblocked, my first edit afterwards will be an apology to Jim. I will point out that I do not go to BLP's and such of people that I disagree with--or flat-out despise--and try to make them look bad. What I am here for is to keep the articles of people that are unfairly attacked as neutral as possible, and to keep topics that I happen to know a lot about (I have a copy of Arguing with Idiots in my car, and have read it twice) as factually accurate as possible. If you choose not to unblock me, I will understand. I deserve it for assuming bad faith. But let it be known that I will try not to be that way anymore.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for disagreeing with another user, you were blocked for edit warring. Your request does not address this specific issue, but I hope you abide by it's promises nonetheless when your block has expired. I advise you to simply wait it out, go do something else for a while, and resume constructive editing tomorrow when the block expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Archive 1
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Real-America-Messages-Heart-Heartland/dp/0743496965/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255957665&sr=1-7
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Book-Solutions-Biggest-Problems/dp/1416560440/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255957665&sr=1-4
  3. ^ http://www.hawes.com/2007/2007-12-09.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Sweater-Glenn-Beck/dp/141659485X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255957665&sr=1-5
  5. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Mormon-Conversion-Story-Glenn/dp/B001EVKWLQ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshuaingram/Archive_1&oldid=1143097789"