User talk:Rose Garden/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Rose Garden/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James James

On the condoms page you reverted some information that was there before Ytrewqt came along so it might be wise to revert it to my version. I'll do it for you if you like though. Chooserr 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Bite

Well I try not to bite new comers - or anyone for that fact - so wasn't getting on you. I hope everything is alright, and your contributions help wikipedia. Chooserr 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slobbered? That's something I truelly didn't try to do...(g). Anyway I hope you had or are still having a Merry Christmas. Chooserr 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BAT YEOR

Well why are we mentioning the same information in the influence section . Do you not read the article you are editing before making changes?--CltFn 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not put duplicate information in wikipedia by mentioning the exact same sentence twice. The entire section which I deleted were already mentioned in the article thus it was unnecessary.--CltFn 05:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What books have you read by Bat Ye'or make I ask?--CltFn 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict all right, but a bit of sneaky vandalism (or WP:POINT, at any rate) by CltFn was still left there after your edit. I think I've fixed it now. Cheers, Palmiro | Talk 06:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy moore vandals.

Hey i am doing my best to tage them as sockpuppets, but i keep putting them as blocked. I'm new to the system, so how would i do that? Parys

They constantly vandal this page, sometime 8 times a day. And personally worked my ass off on the page. So i am not about to just sit and revert, and revert, their has to be another way to do this. Parys

Excessive smarck

Does this look made up to you? File:North American Frosted Chipmunk.jpg??--Ytrewqt 07:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I so need help Parys

Mythology...

Thankyou! With a third person on our side I feel we will win shortly. elvenscout742 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Hi, can I ask why you removed the {{fact}} request from the "some people say" in the lead? I added this request for a source in a hope to remove the weasel words and specify exactly who thinks its is a historically innaccurate metaphor. You are right in that the sentence was ungrammatical, I had in my hurry to correct the misuse of the word metaphor left in an. Thanks, - FrancisTyers 02:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted at Talk:Islamofascism if you're interested :)

Sorry, just a bit heated, Yuber and his personal friends (both also Muslims) anonymous editor and striver jointly inserted that POV and had a few personal attacks and insults from the first two -_- - really don't like the sneakiness and lying grr --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

I heartily agree, that is in one of my favourite Orwell essays. The benefit of the tags is that it persuades someone to provide a reference to a section or to rewrite it. If the source is given further down the article, you can use WP:Footnotes to provide an inline reference. Personally I think the word is a gross oversimplication of the issue at hand and, like the word fascism in general, doomed to be mis-applied. Simplifying the problem of repression of human rights to one religion is ridiculous.

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Thats also a good one :) - FrancisTyers 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all major religions are essentially neo-fascist, to be perfectly honest:

Those who are not followers of the religion are viewed as "less good"/inferior by those who do.
According to religious books (which are essentially law books/rule books "by god"), each one basically implies that the perfect world would be one that everyone follows that particular religion.
Some even kill people who exercise their free will to choose another religion: "Apostasy" -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord

I'm not inclined to get involved in this dispute at the moment to revert him. Unless you have a specific instance of incivility of such that I should talk to him about. If it has reached the point of "stalking" I recommend that you file an RFC or even go to WP:RFAR. Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Army

I appreciate your (fair) editing -- it is indeed difficult to write from a NPOV when you are involved, and I have held back here. there is in fact little from me on this page, apart from the two pictures. Perhaps you could look at the newspaper references again as the first one uses the word "sect" rather than "cult" and although I have altered the text accordingly, I fear I may be accused of lacking a NPOV! --John Campbell 11:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

It's an official redirect. It uses mozilla nameservers. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin action

The guy who created that account is a vandal, trying to get at another editor by publishing the editor's home phone number on Wikipedia (Note the username!). This is not his first attempt, either. Owen× ☎ 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop redirecting articles without a consensus

Stop redirecting the economic fascism article. You know from the vote just a few weeks ago that there was no consensus about anything. [1] And others besides me have put the article back after others such as yourself redirected it without a consensus. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you want to redirect an article, try to get a consensus. RJII 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hey, keep an eye on that 3RR, and rememeber that edit warring is bad. One revert is bad enough. It should never make it to three, much less four. I've protected economic fascism and economics of fascism for the moment...discuss any proposed changes on the talk page. (Singular. Gads, that is a mess over there.) —BorgHunter (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJ11

You're welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't block, but I have a personal policy of not undoing other admins' work except in the case of a clear error. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are my hero

Just though I would let you know. --sansvoix 09:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom for RJII

I know that you said you would not be seeking to get involved in RJII's ArbCom, but nevertheless, here is a link to it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug. I thought you might at least be interested in it. I have posted to the Evidence page. If you do decide to get involved, I'd appreciate any further information you can provide. TomTheHand 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers who died etc.

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I added all the other similar categories to your nom here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_29#Category:Entertainers_who_died_aged_x_etc._categories Regards Arniep 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melungeons

Thanks for the note. As you've probably seen, the site whose link keeps being deleted has a detailed explanation of the outdoor drama and its history, several paragraphs; such a description can't be found on any other site. Banning for 3RR isn't a hard and fast rule and in this case I don't feel we are doing anything wrong by replacing text that has been wrongfully deleted. I agree with the recent comment that it is very wasteful of bandwidth; that is a real shame. I do think the article is getting better and better, despite these recent problems. It's one of the most contentious articles I've worked on, other than Math rock and Cindy Sheehan. Not sure what you're referring to about the two authors. Badagnani 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mugabe

You didn't wait long enough for me to comment. Just because someone's a tyrannical jerk doesn't mean he has a cult of personality. If you look around a long time you can find something like the article at the bottom of this page, which I'm pretty sure appeared in the Herald. But AFAIK such articles are not a daily occurrence. Mugabe is rather serious about suppressing criticism, but not about elevating himself. Gazpacho 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

In fact, the Manual of Style gets it wrong; in the example of a journal article, there are no quotes. I will fix this now. I strongly object with WP adopting the British manner of punctuation inside quotes only for quotes that originally had that punctuation, but what can I do when British folks come around and "fix" this? Badagnani 00:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laubert

Oops. Sorry. My fault. Should have been more careful. Thanks for pointing it out. Cnwb 01:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia advocacy

(See the AFD debate). After some Googling I've come to the conclusion that the title of the renamed article is itself a neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New anti-Semitism

I apologize for offending you. You may be interested in seeing what the author Phyllis Chesler has to say on the subject. --Viriditas 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, James. Thanks for taking the time to comment on my talk page. I don't think there has been any attempt to tie left-wing anti-Zionism in with old-style anti-Semitism. You make a good point about the lead, and I attempted to fix this some time ago (check the history) with an informative lead, but Stevertigo removed my edits, and I felt that his content confused the issue. So, we agree on that point. I don't think that either of us is taking a position, but we both agree that the article needs focus. I think that you may be mistaken about Chesler. She explicitly states that the new anti-Semitism is new because it is espoused by progressives, "...performed by politically correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism, and pacifism." This is in contrast to the old anti-Semitism, which is embraced by right-wing racist groups. --Viriditas 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

economic fascism

Stop being disruptive. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that one has to talk about an edit on the Talk page before one makes it. Note you've just made two reverts. Two more and your banned. RJII 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, I believe you may have violated 3RR so you may want to revert yourself. Any revert to a previous version, in whole or in part, and not necessarily to the same version, more than three times in 24 hours is a violation. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted at 06:00, 06:05, 06:17, 06:46, and he has reported you for it, so you'd be well advised to revert yourself. I've left a note that you've been warned, and that should be enough, but another admin could block you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is gaming the system, making lots of small confusing edits so it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Just note for future that a revert to any previous version counts toward 3RR i.e. any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. I don't think you'll be blocked because you didn't realize you were violating it, and everyone is entitled to a warning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's BS. I am not "gaming the system." I'm simply editing the article. How would you like an arbitration case against you? RJII 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how can you say he didn't realize he was violating it when i warned him just above that he had made two reverts. Wake up. RJII 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, FYI Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia advocacy

Well, at least we agree on your second paragraph. It certainly isn't too small to justify not covering it. People who claim it's unencyclopedic or too small are just trying to censor the whole thing. We may disagree on the name but as long as it isn't deleted, we can always discuss renaming it again later. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't come up with a better name right now. If inspiration strikes, I'll let you know. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting or other disruption

James, I've overlooked one 3RR violation by you, and one by RJII. This is to let you know that from now on, every violation and any disruption will be acted upon. I've left an identical message for RJII in the interests of equal treatment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not your disruption, RJII's. I left the same message for you both to avoid complaints later of a lack of even-handed treatment, which are as certain to arrive as night follows day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I'm sorry, I can't block him for that. I know he made the sentence nonsensical and then removed it on the grounds that it was nonsensical, but it's subtle system-gaming, not quite blockable. I think you can safely restore grammatical sense without being accused of 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not "system-gaming." I'm tired of your baseless accusations. RJII 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're either being disruptive deliberately or you're an extraordinarily bad editor. You mangled a sentence so that it made no sense, then removed part of it on the grounds that it made no sense, and in so doing left an even more mangled one in its place. All to cover up that you were removing the word "libertarian." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it made no sense, but I didn't intentionally make it make no sense. Don't you have anything better to do than sit there and nitpick? RJII 03:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It made no sense because you removed the end of it! And now you're resisting my attempts to find a compromise solution that will allow it to make sense again. James James 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mises institute image

The jpg that I uploaded was used by the Mises institute for a conference that they held. I didn't think it would be a problem. Look at the link below if you want to see more to decide.

http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?control=75

Struck Comments

RE: Talk:Pedophilia advocacy

Please don't reply to struck comments; if something has been retracted that way, it serves little purpose to spend energy refuting it. I believe we are on the same side in this, that's why I struck the comment in the first place. Did you see my comments at the very bottom of that section? I guess I should have just deleted the comments, but I don't like doing that.

After reading some of the stuff I've read trying to research this subject, I'm not sure I want anything more to do with it. --DanielCD 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you debate very well. --DanielCD 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester bombings

Palmiro has since restored order. Thanks for helping out.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closer

Thanks so much for your work on the page for Joy Division's album Closer. You basically took the words out of my mouth and put action to them. I really appreciate it! :) Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon block

According to policy, an IP address can only be blocked indefinitely if it's an open proxy. If it's the same guy doing it, I highly doubt it's an open proxy, as those tend to encourage massive amounts of users to edit and vandalize from the same IP address. I can't make heads or tails of that mumbo-jumbo posted at the top of the page, though, that could be indicating that it is in fact an open proxy. Again, the block I gave is pretty much the only option I have... :( Sincerely, Mo0[talk] 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage (P.MacUidhir)

Thank you for correcting that spelling error located on my userpage. Quite honestly, it surprised me a bit since I tend to isolate myself to only a few subject areas in editing Wikipedia articles, so I assume that very few people are viewing my userpage. :) → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite simple. I was looking at the RfA page. I don't usually bother with it but I saw Haukur's name, which I recognised, and saw you'd nominated him. I was curious (mostly because of the name!) and checked it out. I hope that doesn't seem too sinister! James James 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, no. I suppose I am just used to being an unknown online, at least in most places. :) Good to meet you, James.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind words

Although your kind words are nice, how did you happen across my little self note? I'm always curious about anyone who enters my user page... Spawn Man 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) BTW, "James, James, hold the ladder steady...." BTW, You're welcome to try my hardest questions in the world section. Spawn Man 07:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks thanks James James for your suggestion of creating a user page - done: Wiki School

And what's more, I've added the "creation of a user page" to my (white belt?) curriculum list.

Brusselsshrek 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki School input

As all good election candidates, I am breaking my RfA election promises, and doing what I said I would do if I did get elected, that is the Wiki School. Be a good chap and fill it out a bit would you? It really needs a more experienced person than me on it already. I will, I'm sure, 'release it' when it is a bit more honed to a wider audience, but for now, I'd be grateful for your input on it. Be bold with your changes! Brusselsshrek 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Need a favor

Can you remove the slander about me on your talke page please. Parys 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi James, thanks for your thoughts in my RFA. I considered adding something about steering clear or asking advice on tough calls, but my comment was already massive & I didn't want to go on. Please be assured that I would do this. I didn't mention assessing the quality of a vote; I thought it would go without saying. I would do this also.

I've addressed the editcountitis claim, as it doesn't seem obvious to me. If you would like further clarification on any of these points or anything else, please contact me via my talk page. I hope you might reconsider your vote, but if not, no hard feelings. All the best, Proto t c 11:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you've just cleared up where I was going wrong. If the two keep votes were researched, cited, and justified, and the 18 delete votes were not, then I would certainly be reluctant to delete. This might be the case if there's been a swathe of delet votes, and then someone found some good reasons to keep the article. Or if the article had been shitty, but had then been edited to make it more encyclopaedic or to provide evidence of notability or any of the other reasons an article should be kept. The quality and information contained in the votes of contributors must be takien into acount when assessing consensus, and if I was ever in doubt, then I would either ask a more experienced eye to take over, or at least ask for assistance.

My rules are very flexible, but I do think 1000 edits isn't much, and getting to this would show there's been enough experience gained. It's strange how this is now being damned as editcountitis - six months ago, many, many editors used to rigorously apply standards of a minimum of 2000 edits (or even more!) on RfAs, and there were no problems with this. Of course, someone with 800 well made, valuable edits would have made a broader and more in-depth contribution then someone with 4000 edits made up solely of vandalism reverts (not going to say more important, as reverting vandalism is important too).

Do you have anything else you would like me to clarify? I should have said all the above in my RfA in the first place... Proto t c 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trude Weiss-Rosmarin

James, thank you for your kind note. I very much appreciate the positive feedback. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland High School (Ohio)

I understand that some people may not know me yet, but the wiki is about a small high school. Because fame is so relative, I'm practically a celebrity because of the size of the school. I'll respect your seniority and not change it back, but know this: I will be famous some day, and I'll have a wiki for my self in excess of THREE sentences. Eddievanzant, 5:41, Jan 30, 2006

You are completely wrong. Whenever a minor is in danger of molestation the matter is URGENT!!!

It makes absolutely NO difference weather a potential predator is speeking to the child via telephone, written mail, or through the internet. To think that child endangerment is "not a urgent matter" simply because it occered via wikipedia text is extremely naive Im afraidpickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude. I removed my own comment from your page, and your related comments from mine. Neither set added anything of value to Wikipedia. You can put mine back on your page if that's what you want, although I find that it has outlived its usefulness at this point and is better left where it is, in the page history. eae 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Rose Garden/archive1, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Warning: Please do not add obscenities to Wikipedia. Injecting unnecessary swear words, racially or sexually abusive comments, or provocative pictures to articles or user pages offends many people. Wikipedia treats such actions as vandalism and blocks people from editing for such repeated vandalism. [2] ×Meegs 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was followed by a pair of malicious page moves to Kip Thorne. Both actions seem out of character for James James, so I suspect that someone else has gotten a hold of his account. ×Meegs 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This account appears to have been compromised

James James' contributions through Feb 7 seem to indicate he's an upstanding editor, but edits beginning with today have been only vandalism. It appears that someone has guessed the password. I've blocked the account indefinitely until this can be sorted out. android 79 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am very sorry my fellow Wikipedians. I am the real James James, and what was done earlier today was an elaborate scam caaried out by members of my office. I am back to normal, and have changed my password so that no other misdemeanours may occur. I thank you for stopping them before they went too far. I shall do my best to restore peace once more to Wikipedia.

Thank you Android

I've unblocked you. I'll be watching just in case this is just another ruse. android 79 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on Android79's page. Sadly, this account has been compromised by a vandal. I don't even have an office, let alone miscreants in it. I've asked someone who knows me personally to block the account permanently but if anyone wants to CheckUser, they're welcome to do so. 203.206.77.40 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. You appear to have set an email address; you can mail yourself a new password if the address is valid. android 79 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. The guy responsible or one of his friends sent me the new password, so I've retrieved the account. Now I just need to get unblocked ;-( James James 05:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]