User talk:SJP/page 6

You're back!

I noticed you were'nt around much; glad you're back! :) Thanks for wishing me a nice week, and for asking God to bless me. :) I hope you're back to normal and stress-free soon! · AO ^Talk 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you're not as stressed anymore. Wikireligion was a tough nut; new wikis always are. Seven of Nine was right at wikikids, but I didn't stick around long enough to say how he was at religion. I did see his userpage comment though, and I don't think it should have been deleted, and a rule created against it. If it was as you say, the block could have been fair (for disruption). I don't think his best bet was to send e-mails to you; did you respond to any of them? · AO ^Talk 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't? (just kidding :) Well, life goes on eh? Some people just try to be mean, others are misinterpreted, and others—such as you—are just plain nice. Like it or not, that's the way it is. God bless you my friend. · AO ^Talk 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still edit on religion? I thought you said you left. Anyways, don't pay too much attention to what he says; WP:TROLL might help. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!! :) · AO ^Talk 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then read Dante. ;) · AO ^Talk 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.whyaretheydead.net

I removed this link from Scientology per WP:EL. The site is little more than unverifiable original research suggesting some kind of conspiracy about Scientology-related deaths. And I am concerned that your adding the link was meant to push some kind of critical point-of-view regarding Scientology. If you really think it has encyclopedic value, suggest it at Talk:Scientology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link provides nothing more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your addition of http://scientology.bridgeinc.us/scientology/fot_3.html was also reverted again for violating WP:EL (link primarily to sell something). Please don't just add random links in order to try to provide "both sides" - links must fit within existing policies. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeeeeeeeey buddy

Yeah I saw you were inactive for a while. So how's your project going on? I'd be happy to join with that? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

FYI: this does not appear to be vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. My bad :) --James, La gloria è a dio 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I'm Back

Hello Sir James Paul! It's nice to see that you are back and sharing your talents with the Wikipedia community. I hope you enjoyed your month long break. Lately, I've been editing some articles pertaining to Lent. Thanks for your message! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and thanks for your message! The Rambling Man 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me too! I too have been forced away for just over a month due to internet problems, so missed most of your absence, but it is, in any case, good to have you back. Mart inp23 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hi, I notice that you've taken on this AMA case, as per your comments at User talk:Notmyrealname 2. Could you please enter your name under Advocate Status in the case file, just to let other AMA members know you've taken the case? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault - I got it mixed up with an older case at User talk:Notmyrealname from December 2006. For some reason, the above talkpage was cited as relevant to the dispute, despite the fact that Notmyrealname and Notmyrealname 2 appear to be two different users. Thanks for the smile. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Dear Sir james paul, Thanks a lot for the lovely smile and great message..Wish you best of luck..Wish you all the strength, you need to fight those (amazingly) unfair critics of Christianity/Roman Catholicism and rest of vandals.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Removing spaces from your own comments is vandalism now? Please try not to bite the newcomers. Thanks – Qxz 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot

Thanks :). It's nice to have got the anti-vandal bots working again after a few months of absence. Mart inp23 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I very much appreciate the thought. Have an excellent week yourself too :-) Will (aka Wimt) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is/Is Not Vandalism

Hi. I see you've found a new tool for reverting edits and warning users. Cool. It also seems to automatically label them as vandalism in the edit summary. Just be wary of accusing folks of vandalism if their edits aren't precisely that. Remember, some edits need to be reverted, but aren't necessarily vandalism. You might upset some people, especially the the newbies. Happy editing. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: [1]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one I did not mark as vandalism and I did not warn the person. Thanks for bringing it up though :) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look at your edit summary. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write mean to make instead of mark. I know I did actualy mark it as vandalism. :)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I urge you to again review the links above to help discern what is and is not vandalism. As you can see below, there seems to be an increased frequency of mis-labeled reverts. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will:) Thanks a lot for the advice:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to probably take a look at all the policies and guidlines again. It has been a while:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See yet another example below.Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs?

You said to post here if I wanted jobs?

concernign the vandalism

Im sorry about the vandalism, it wasn't done by me, but by my younger(11 yr old) brother. So i sincerly apoligize for it. I would liek to be a positive contributor to this site. once again, im sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.89.150 (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

D.T.D

Uh, okay, I'm really sorry about whatever I did...(I have no idea what you're talking about, though). So, could you just tell me what vandalism I did?? (Probably wasn't intentional.) "Love forever, love is free."

Okay. Thanks for the smile, BTW. Happy editing, "Love forever, love is free."

- I dunno, perhaps 3, 4 months? I do most of my RV-ing under an IP thingy...I'm too lazy to sign in most of the time. :) "Love forever, love is free."

- - (You're right, it doesn't take that much time to log in. Fine. I'm overly lazy to an extent that people have to push me to get me to walk. :) ) Wikipedia's nice, actually. It's great for research, but it just makes me so mad to see people destroying pages that people put so much effort into.

"Love forever, love is free."

- - - Whacking vandals is fun (it's more of a big hobby. Haha, I sound like I have no life...kidding.). I don't do that much article writing because I don't think that my writing is particulairly good. Besides, most articles here seem well written already (with the exception of some). "Love forever, love is free." PS: Uh...why does your smily have two parentheses? Just wondering...:))

Tools? That'd be great. Where do you get this stuff anyways?

DTD

Veterans of the First World War Who Died in 2000

What was it, precisely, about the edits to this page that constituted vandalism?

Vandalism of John Paul II

What I wrote was not vandalism. It was an attempt at Neutral Point of View. 204.52.215.107 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with the edit, I do agree that this was definitely not vandalism. I think you need to stop using the script. Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A smile from you

That did make my day. Thank you and I am sending a smile back to you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks!

Thanks for stepping in and helping moderate the dispute over The Scientific Activist. Biochemnick 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Not sure if this is being done right, but...I go a message from you about adding personal input in the Rule of Rose section just recently. I'm completey at a loss as to what you are talking about-could you please tell me what edit you were referring to specifically and how it was doing so? -11:05 17 March 2007

Okay, I read your new message, but am again confused. What was said the link was in now way in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. As of now, both the fansite and the forum ARE the largest in existence-it is just stating a solid fact. I have seen other links with similiar wording that have not been deleted, so why should mine be? Also, it really is not breaking Wikipedia's policy, since me calling it the largest is not my personal opinion-it just is. Just as Alaska is the biggest US state. It's a fact that is in no way in conflict with the rules.

The only source I can think of is showing you the link to the only other RoR fansite out there, which is not even close to being completed or anywhere near as big as Rule of the Rose: http://www.forgotten-sanctuary.net/rose/

With all due respect, there is quite a lot of information on Wikipedia that says it is uncited. There is no way to cite that it is the biggest, but there are tons of other links that also have uncited information in them, but none have been removed. It really feels like I'm being picked on because of this. There is currently only one other known fansite out there, and it is smaller than Rule of the Rose. But why would there be an official citation of this?

Re:Tools

Hello Sir james paul! Thanks for thinking about me when you found out of the new tool: User scripts. I really appreciate it. I have added the new tool, although keeping some previous ones. Is it okay that I do so or will there be compatibility issues? Your reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding!

Per your request, I deleted the word "largest" from my link, but now it STILL keeps getting deleted and some other mod is threatening to block me, trying to claim it is spam, even though it isn't!67.163.193.239 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at great length on both your talk page and mine, this link fails WP:EL as it is essentially a personal site hosted on geocities, and it provides no encyclopedia information beyond what is found in the articles themselves. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most fan pages are not welcomed. If they were, every wikipedia article would have around 300 links. Your fansite isn't even an 'important' one, you don't get information from Sony about the game, you have a very limited bandwidth, and it doesn't even have a registered domain. Your page even adds any information about the topic. Pages like that are created all the time, and there's no need for them to be here.

-Pablo BsAs

That is a downright lie and you know it! I read those guidelines, and the site does NOT qualify as personal. It is not about me, nor does it have a resume or anything like that. It contains a LOT of information about the game-a LOT more than what is in the wikipedia article, including FAQs and in=depth anylasis on everying people have pointed out in the game.

Hi

Sorry for my short memory, I don't remember on what case this is. Fad (ix) 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, I remember now, Paytakaran, I guess this means that I really need a wikibrake. Fad (ix) 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I could not prevent myself landing in the Evolution articles talkpage. Fad (ix) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Evolution

In what way was this edit [dif] representative of WP:NPOV? Did you spend any amount of time reading the discussion in the Talk:Evolution to find out how that particular canard of the Creationist crowd had been refuted months ago? Or that most of the more advanced of the creationist crowd doesn't even use that particular language any more? Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a fact and theory". Retrieved 2007-03-16.. Orangemarlin 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors consider Evolution an undisputed fact in the scientific community and their editors and admins advocating this belief out numbers everyone else, so its pretty much impossible to refute anything. They also have a good investment in the intelligent design and have been able to label it 'junk science' and keep it because its also a fact. good luck! Wyatt 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate you here. Bring it to the various pages. But Evolution is a fact. And Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. Orangemarlin 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proved my point. even user pages are corrupted. Wyatt 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the rigt to believe in it and think it is true but it is not fact. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so many people have been taught bogus stuff for so long, and now theres some convincing laymen books that make very bold (and unfounded) statements about the 'fact of evolution', so now its got so much momentum, that i'm unsure how you could change anything. Wyatt 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to see something when wrong when you apply the philosophy of materialism to everything else. The world doesnt operate by materialism, but rather materialism is a pathology of the world that makes it worse rather than better. Gravity is still considered a theory, but you'll probably have an easier time calling gravity a 'theory' then evolution. Dawkins said in an BBC interview that to teach religion to children was child abuse and the main force of evil in the world is religion. These are concepts implied by natural selection and selfish gene, etc. Wyatt 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AMA

Thanks for coming back. Your assistance is needed. Regards, Grandmaster 06:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're wrapping things up on Paytakarn. Shouldn't be long before complete resolution. The Transhumanist 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Evolution (20 March 2007)

Please refrain from adding things to articles that have already been debated to death and refuted on the article talk page. If you continue, it may be considered vandalism. Thanks. illspirit|talk 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not refute that it is a theory. You can't. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've previously stated, read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, specifically the section titled Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. All major page moves must be discussed prior to moving, and your suggestion was rejected. illspirit|talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Evolution. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. illspirit|talk 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not :unconstructive" for me to say that some do not believe that evolution is a fact. There is nothing wrong with it. Also it is crazy to say that what I am doing is vandalism! Look at all the work I have done fighting vandalism. All I want is for wikipedia to be the best it can be. Thanks:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Evolution. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert that once more, James, and you will get blocked. Please see all the various discussion messages and edit summaries disputing your attempted edits. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in doing what is right, and not what is popular, no matter how much it hurts you. If this thing hurts my chances of becoming a admin, or even gets me blocked, I do not care. James, La gloria è a dio 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and comments like this are problematic and unhelpful. Don't accuse other editors of being atheists when you have no clue as to their philosophies, and don't threaten "a fight" for your "just cause". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So wikipedia beingf NPOV is not a just cause? James, La gloria è a dio 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Based on your reaction to the warning, I have reported a breach of the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. James, La gloria è a dio 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Evolution, and announcing your intent to continue to "fight". Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or engage in dispute resolution rather than engage in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It is fine for you to block me for making a article more correct and for stating that doing what is right is more important than popularity. It is clear that wikipedia is extrmely biased when it comes to science articles. That is not right. What is even worse is that you allow peoples POV get in the way of articles being as accurate as they can. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. To not allow that to get into the article is far from NPOV. You guys preach that all articles should be NPOV, yet you encourage POV. Also, I do not regret doing what I did and getting blocked. You guys are just hurting yourselves. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory and fact. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked for the content of your edits, you were blocked for the manner in which you were making them. If it becomes clear that your edits do not have consensus, it's time to stop and talk to those who disagree, or ask for a wider range of opinion, not to engage in an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please discuss article moves prior to making them. Especially for major articles, you absolutely must obtain a consensus prior to moving the article. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I care about the accuracy of the encyclopedia. I am a strong believer in NPOV. Someones POV never should get in the way of the accuracy of articles. I do not mind if the article Evolution stays in the same place but what I do care about is that it is stated that Evolution is a theory. I would just like to let you know I believe that Evolution is very much possible and in some aspects thing do evolve but it is still a theory. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate for you to think that you alone can decide what is neutral and what is not. You must discuss these changes to article titles prior to making them. I am not interested in whether or not you accept evolution or any other area of science. You seem to misunderstand the scientific usage of terms like fact and theory. Please consider reading the FAQ and Evolution as theory and fact for further explanation before you propose other changes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Anandamoyi Ma

The article on Sri Anandamoyi Ma is in serious shambles. Help wanted. Aditya Kabir 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Criticism of Islam??

Your suggestion that the article Criticism of Islam should be deleted argues that "It really is not right to have a entire article with Criticism of anything on it." Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire notion of neutral point of view is based on articles "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Thus, many articles contain "Criticism" sections to provide space for counter viewpoints on the topic - and when those sections get too large, they are often broken off into entirely separate articles. Please do not continue down this path. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. Just to let you know I am perfectly fine with having a section on critisism but I just do not see the need for a entire article. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is not a POV fork (which this example isn't), splitting an article is acceptable and commonplace. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Evolution

Dear Sir james paul, I've added my comments on the Evolution talk page. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Evolution

Consider this your only warning that you are, once again, nearing a 3RR violation at evolution. Discuss, don't edit war. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am talking about it. James, La gloria è a dio 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

The three-revert rule represents the limit of acceptable behavior; it does not entitle editors to make repeated reverts. If you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked from editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking about it on the talk page. I am not going to break the 3RR rule. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::As noted above, 3RR is not a "right", and if your edits continue to be disruptive - like this one at Intelligent design - you will likely be blocked whether or not 3RR has been violated. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." This is from Ignore all Rules. According to this policy I can ignore a policy if it is keeping my from improving wikipedia. That means that I can break 3RR if I am adding back accurate, sourced info. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Under Ignore all Rules you can ignore any policy or guidline that is hurting wikipedia in any way. What I did was added sourced info to a article that says it is the most likely theory on how life was created. They kept on taking it out because they do not like the idea that Evolution is a theory. You can find the source in the history of the article. Thanks:) --James, La gloria è a dio 03:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ignore All Rules isn't a license to edit war. It certainly doesn't excuse 3RR violations. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Second block

I have temporarily blocked you from editing. This is due to your persistent edit-warring, and in particular, a three-revert rule violation at Evolution. You may expect block lengths to increase if you continue this behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested in your original block request above, "Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." Your unblock request was denied. If you continue to place new requests, you will lose the privilege of being able to edit this page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Smile and Comment

Keeping Wikipedia neutral is a worthy goal, but it increasingly seems you are promoting your specific view on the way the article should read. Couching your activism under the guise of promoting a neutral point of view will not make it any less unacceptable. I also note that it only took fifteen minutes after you stated to me "I am not going to break 3RR" for you to break it. Honesty does not seem to be a quality you have embraced. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to think that but I honestly care about wikipedia articles being NPOV. I am not doing this because of any personal beliefs. Have a nice week and god bless:) James, La gloria è a dio 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

consensus on intelligent design

you've done a good job at point out that the ID article is not the consensus of the editors and that the ID intro is not NPOV. i liked the new intro, but still would like to see 'junk science' removed. talking to admins may help your case, rather than suffering from 3RR blocks Wyatt 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do not feel I have done a great job at it but thanks anyway:) I feel as if you have done more to try to make the science articles NPOV than I have. My block will be over at around 11 pm ET. See you then:) --James, La gloria è a dio 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1992

How is this version better? Will Reeve is a deleted article, and the adjective "American" is informative. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I still wonder what you were thinking when you said the previous version was "better" - are you not looking at the actual edits you revert? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then explain what you meant by "better" - am I missing something? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the TW help! It works now after I removed the code of an unused tool in my monobook and bypassed the cache. Wooyi 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Barnstar

Thank you Sir james paul! I really appreciate this community and the kindness that it shows from people like you :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you from me, as well. Jerry 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And dare I third that? Many thanks...! The Rambling Man 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I regret to say that I do not fully understand your recent message to me. Except by the posting of my RfA application on the appropriate page, which is addressed to the whole wikipedia community, I have not asked for your support. As with any application for admin status made by any user, I would assume that you would either vote (support, oppose or neutral) or would abstain, according to your personal inclination. And this is the way it should be.--Anthony.bradbury 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-)

		The Golden Quackstar
		I hereby award you my golden quackstar as thanks for yet another kind barnstar. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

Hey Sir james, this is just a quick note to say that you might wish to calm down on your mentioning of religious beliefs on wikipedia, it's just that comments like this could quite easily offend people who are non christians. It's best to keep all these things off wiki, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jesus Christ our Lord" -> "Jesus Christ your Lord". Matthew 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

You are obviously a careful, thoughtful editor, so I would not ask you to change your vote or anything like that. But I'm curious if you could possibly take the time to revisit the article and the discussion. All controversial material has been removed from the article, and the remaining concerns have been addressed. Thank you, Sir James Paul. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a very good and valid question. I cannot speak to what humor pieces do for the community at large. I can only tell you what they do for me, and the reason I think humor pieces are accepted for the most part on Wikipedia. My chief activity on Wiki is vandal patrol. I use various programs, such as "Mike's Wiki Tool" to assist me. The job is quite tedius and, frankly, boring. But I think we both can agree it's important. I'm proud to make this contribution, but after an hour of it, I get pretty burned out. That's when I surf the humor pieces. Some are funnier than others, some are not funny at all, but they give me a chance to unwind a bit without having to leave Wiki. On occasion, I'll write one.

Paper encyclopedias can never compete with Wikipedia for one big reason. Wiki is a LIVING encyclopedia. It's dynamic, it's a community, it has heros, and it has vandalism. It also has humor, and humor is important to any community.

I doubt if I've swayed your opinion of anything in any way, but I would like to thank you for being interested enough in my opinion to ask a question. That means a lot to me, and while we have found ourselves on opposite sides of this issue, I'm certain that the condition will not last forever and I look forward to being in agreement on some future issue to come.

Be well. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, James! I really appreciate it! God bless you, and every one you know! -- P.B. Pilhet 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the smile! I have been taking a lot of flack from random vandals and spammers and really appreciate it. It has already made my night better. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the Xenu controversy. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you so much. I am trying to figure out how you found me, since we seem not to edit in the same circles. I am very pleased to accept the barnstar from you particularly as a sign of interfaith cooperation. Buddhipriya 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

That was the tip of the iceberg in terms of my complaints about AMA. In fact, the last complaint I made was today (before I knew about the deletion nomination). I was told by the coordinator that there must be something wrong with me because none of my Advocates worked out. In fact, an organised sockpuppet ring had been after me for 6 months.

My first advocate was helpful but his browser didn't work so he couldn't answer my emails or posts, the second advocate spread my name around posting for comments about me everywhere and even asked each member of the sockpuppet ring, as well as posting on all the articles in question to forward their opinions about me to him. He continued when I and another Advocate begged him to stop as he what he was doing was harmful to me. Then he dropped out without telling me and never gave me any feedback, saying it was too complicated and he didn't have the time.

Then the coordinator put the case "under investigation" in January and has not contacted me since. When I contacted him, to ask what was happening, he said I was whining. By this time we were over a month into Arbitration over the issues I needed an Advocate for. Advocates defended two of the sockpuppets, one of them in the Arbitration. Fortunately, in Arbitration it turned out that all these people were sockpuppets. (I guess it is whining if 10 sockpuppets stalk you for six months.)

I think AMA is not only ineffective but damaging and harmful. They are a means for enabling sockpuppets. If a user really needs help the user is whining. In Arbitration, Advocates are totally inappropriate. The sockpuppet's Advocate asked another sockpuppet to email him for information about me in the Arbitration, after than sockpuppet called me a group of incarcerated inmates in the Arbitration and was blocked. The Advocate said the truth was more sad. (????) The Advocate's comment was seen as inappropriate and removed from the Arbitration record.

The coordinator said today, in response to my input, I must be in a terrible mess now since no Advocate could help me. Well, no. Without an Advocate I am doing fine. The Arbitration shut down the sockpuppet ring. All I needed was those sockpuppets off my back. Because of one Advocate there still is a loose sockpuppet but I think Arbitrators have his number as he has not posted since he "left" Wikipedia on January 15. His Advocate is so out to lunch that when our Arbitration closed a few days ago, the Advocate posted a congratulations on his page. I guess he still doesn't know his Advocee is a sockpuppet.

Please support shutting down this completely unprofessional, self-agrandising group professing to be helpful. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Closing MFDs

Some people frown upon non-admins closing xFDs. I personally don't see a problem with it, as long as a user doesn't get in the way of anyone. Basically though, non-admins are only recommended to close non-controversial deletion discussions that will result in KEEP (closing as delete tends to create more work for an admin, as I can typically close and delete a typical article in about 30 seconds after I'm done reading the discussion...provided there's no major cleanup), such as many that get speedy kept for one reason or another. I suppose it's up to you if you want to do it, but there's no rule prohibiting it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA case SimonB

Hi James. Thank you for taking up the AMA case. I was previously in contact with Aeon1006 regarding the case. Did Aeon brief you on the correspondence me and Aeon have had so far? Just let me know where to start from and what you need from me at this stage. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. Detur soli Deo gloria. --Anthony.bradbury 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evolution 2

I said you were promoting your specific view of the way the article should read, not that it necessarily reflected your personal views on science or religion. As an aside, I believe that others who call themselves “creationists” generally hold different views than the one you expressed here. However, as I also remarked to you earlier, I am not interested in whether or not you accept evolution or any other area of science. You may believe what you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks.
--Meno25 08:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Sir james paul, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hey James, you want to start the coaching? I'll be coaching you, with a partner, okay? Tell me what you think about it.--Tdxiang 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstar

Thank you for the kind award of the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar in March, it was very much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I Destructo_087 award you with this barnstar for sending smiley faces to so many Wikipedians.

No problem dude u deserve it --Destructo 087 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETA?

Hi James, Would you be able to give me an ETA regarding the AMA case? I hope you don't mind me asking but I'm feeling a little bit like things are up in the air since April 1st. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. "ETA" means "estimated time of arrival". I guess the question is redundant now since you have just announced the end of your well-earned wiki-break :-)

Regards Bksimonb 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I would really appreciate your advice and input soon if possible. Regards Bksimonb 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Thanks for getting back to me. This is the AMA case here. Regards Bksimonb 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AGK

It seems you inadvertently posted your comment to the neutral section, so I was bold and moved it to the support section [2]. Hope you don't mind. —Alde Baer 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theologist101 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

,

My edit to Harry Potter

I was trying to add a comment to explain my last edit to Harry Potter and hit the Save button before I checked the "Minor edit" checkbox. This was just a minor edit to make the formatting of the section headers consistent in format; this doesn't change the article's appearance, but does make identifying headers easier when they are all in the same internal format. - Bevo 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revision history on Harry Potter and my minor edit

I just reviewed the edit history of Harry Potter. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=127703456&oldid=127702503 is my edit, but I see now that I applied it just after Harry Potter was vandalized. I try hard to keep that from happening! I'll try even harder...and, thanks for the vigilance to revert the vandals...I too, do my share of reverting. - Bevo 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge

I Destructo_087 herby invite you to find my hidden page by going on my userpage and finding it. If you find it and sign on it you will get a Wikipedia Prize.

Sorry to keep nagging but...

Hi Paul. Could you please let me know what happens next with the AMA case [3] and when? I'm feeling like I'm in a state of limbo at the moment having waited a few weeks already. If you are too busy or feel that the case is not something you feel comfortable with or you are still reading up on the background or any other factor then please just say so so that I know. Thanks in anticipation Bksimonb 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Thanks for replying. Before starting there is a possible sensitive issue that I need to make you aware of. It is one of those type of issues where one doesn't really know how much of a problem it is likely to be but one has to assume it could be. I notice you have not enabled email so is there any way I can just let you know off-wiki, perhaps as a reply to emailing me [4]? This is why I originally asked if you had been briefed by Aeon1006 since I had already made him aware of the issue.

Also please have a look at latest developments the BKWSU talk page. I would like to know what your opinion is of what is happening there and what my options are to respond. I am currently experiencing personal attacks. Bksimonb 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for checking in on the talk page. Much appreciated :-) BTW, I don't know if you saw this attack on another page [5] which has now lead to this. Bksimonb 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

james...........this is a copy of a single line on the bkwsu page , i will answer you on either your own or my own , or the AMA case...........you chose which

there is an admin notice asking us to keep things to discussion about the topic alone , this seems to me to be something quite separate

Green108 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi james.........i am very sorry to bring this this whole thing to your table , but are we going for this mediation thing now? i'd like to get it done and finally put at end to all the endless goading and prejudicial slurs being made against me..............perhaps if they do and I am left alone we can all get on with being normal healthy productive human beings

thanks Green108 05:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Voice

Hi James. I wonder if you could drop by the BKWSU talk page and let me know what your views are on the Islamic Voice thread. This is where I would appreciate a reality check. As far as I can tell the source for the citations user Faithinhumanity is proposing to insert are POV, the main one being this one. I remember reading somewhere on Wikipedia that religious scholars commenting on other religions are not reliable sources but I can't find that anywhere now to link to. This is an example of some of the issues I would like to address with the article i.e. the quality of the citations being put forward and the fact that most, if not all, of them portray a negative view.

Of course, I could be completely off base here in which case I would appreciate your feedback.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you accused me of vandalism?

Hi, you just accused me of vandalism (within seconds of my first Wikipedia edit!)... I simply followed the guidelines I found in the help pages on what to do if I found a potential copyright infringement here Richard Arnold (TV presenter). Please tell me what I did wrong! 85.211.18.51 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just asked me to provide evidence that it is copyright... take a look at the link in the violation notice - it points to [6] on the GMTV website, which clearly states at the bottom "Copyright (c) 2007 GMTV". The text of the article was almost word for word the same, with just a couple of sentences removed. 85.211.18.51 08:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you accused me of vandalism? Part 2

Re: Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Big Bads in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. James, La gloria è a dio 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who started the Season 8 section but from a different computer. The reason for my edit, although I did forget to state so, was that by the time the 5 issues of the comic book come out, the section would be way too long. If people wish to read the details, they can go to the main Season 8 article. I have changed back the article and would ask that if have any questions about my claims to send a message to the talk page for my other IP address (24.72.109.227). Thank you. 24.89.69.22 15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it some sort of bot?

Have you created your own bot to revert vandalism? You just reverted a change of mine in which I deleted trivia, calling it "vandalism." If you are running a bot that has difficulty distinguishing between vandalism and constructive edits, perhaps making the accusation of vandalism in the bot's script isn't the best choice. Dybryd 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more careful

You need to be more careful of identifying others people's work as vandalism. I created the entire History of China template myself and was fixing a minor error when you decided my edits were vandalism. You, sir, just accused the owner of a shop of stealing from his own shop. --Naus 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics Films

Both Iron man and Ghost Rider are confirmed to have seqeuls, thus they are franchises, Iron Man has 2 sequels in the works

RE:

Sure! but don;t have anything yet.. I learned on my own account that you cannot post youtube videos.. someone needs to talk to Jimbo. Lazylaces (Talk to me 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no tags for youtube videos. Lazylaces (Talk to me 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go noe. C ya, Lazylaces (Talk to me 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. Are you? Is a sysop ths same as an admin? Lazylaces (Talk to me 13:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then yes, and it failed (obviously) Lazylaces (Talk to me 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjani8

Why would you call correcting a wrong url link "vandalism"? Plus they ARE known as the only JE group in the Enka genre. Why is adding that piece of information vandalism?

Can you explain the threat of my IP address being blocked if I further "vandalize" wikipedia?

Between the two of us, I'd say your actions are closer to vandalism than mine.

Smile Even bigger!

Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot reveting vandalism is the best:D.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tools I see, I heard of many like TW(you use it) and VP and Vandal sniper and the other 1s but I like reverting vandalism the old way.thanks anyway,Take Care-Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I sure will and I only been here for about 2 months and I have 1700 edits,Take Care-Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ebooks

Hi -- I got your message. Actually, I gave an edit summary, and discussed it on the talk page, and my edits were edits that had already been suggested by another user on the talk page.--76.81.164.27 16:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

It may help with your edits if you were to read the Talk:Evolution/FAQ. This would explain why you are being reverted. TimVickers 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to these edits: [7][8][9] ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have removed the warning I gave you for your breach of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. This is not a recommended action, but I shall not replace this on your talk page. I am impressed by the amount of work you do on anti-vandalism, so this rudeness on your part seems uncharacteristic. I hope the remainder of your day is more positive and enjoyable. TimVickers 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers...

Hi Sir James Paul. Please be careful to observe WP:BITE when dealing with potential newcomers. The edits by 75.67.72.195, while not perfect, appear to have been made in good faith and good faith edits should never be treated with threating anti-vandalism templates. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an intrinsic conflict of interests when evaluating your own actions. Good faith edits (including poorly done ones from new users) are never vandalism and calling them vandalism is biting. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, I think you are doing a wonderful job reverting vandalism.... however I notice a ongoing pattern of miss-identified edits and over-use of vandalism warning templates. In the future I recommend that you take a little more care and time when dealing with a "borderline" edits and error on the side of assuming good faith. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know... mistakes happen.

You reverted this set of a dozen edits or so: [10] with this edit: [11] warning the annon to never do it again here: [12]. We (OTRS) then got an email from a concerned parent about her very upset son. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Vandalism?

There has been a week-long dispute on the Holocaust Denial article, hence the giant discussion that the "Disputed Neutrality" bar links to. Then you come, strolling right in, accusing people of vandalism when you have absolutely no clue on what's going down.