User talk:Josiah Rowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Josiah Rowe is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005
  2. Jan–Feb 2006
  3. Mar–Apr 2006
  4. May–Jun 2006
  5. Jul–Aug 2006
  6. Sep–Oct 2006
  7. Nov–Dec 2006
  8. Jan–Feb 2007
  9. Mar–Apr 2007
  10. Jun–Aug 2007
  11. Sep–Oct 2007
  12. Nov 2007–Feb 2008
  13. Mar–Apr 2008

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Click here to add a new topic.


Contents

[edit] E-mail

Do you happen to have e-mail enabled? Grsztalk 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do, probably should have looked more carefully. Grsztalk 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds look a good idea. Grsztalk 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you could tell me if my recent edits at Jeremiah Wright are violating 3RR, since I see them as protecting a BLP, which then overrules 3RR. Thanks, Grsztalk 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help getting me out of trouble! Grsztalk 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Now behave! :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY

Hmmmm... That policy does exist, but I wonder if I should redirect that to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity, or simply redirect it to the Rationale section. I wonder if that section has a BIG LETTERED redirect. ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disagree

You and I disagree about Malia Obama article. However, do you want to disagree (or agree) with my Rezko assessment, see Talk:Barack Obama. Stop others from hiding important biographical information. Watchingobama (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children of American Politicians

Could you delete this, as watchingobama created it by copy and pasting Malia Obama, Wade Edwards and Cate Edwards. Grsztalk 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy - edit war: Update

Hi Josiah,

User:Trilemma, has been engaged in an edit war, I think about 8-9 reverts. He is also POV pushing and has rearranged/renamed many sections where Jeremiah Wright and Obama's response are now below the "Polls" section. I have not been involved with any of the above edits. It is really hard to work on an article and make any progress with the behavior of editors like this.75.31.210.156 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the situation.75.31.210.156 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi,

I posted the following comments below yours on the 3RR board:

Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. [1] He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and user talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. If this request is beyond the 3RR board, could you please refer this to the to the appropriate admin. Thank You 75.31.210.156 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a discussion was opened on the Admin board - Should I also post the comments there?


I also added a BLP template to the talk page. I have a couple of ideas on how to deal with the edit wars and improve the artcle:

1. Write and post (in bold text) a strongly worded appeal to editors' higher-selves, suggesting that they shift their focus from their current POVs to working in a collaborative manner towards improving the article. The mutual goal would be a challenge to achieve at least a ‘good’ rating for the article.

2. Beneath the appeal/challenge have a section where they can sign a pledge and also post to their talk pages a notification of the above proposal.

3. Create an adjacent “Suggestions for improving article” section, where editors can voice their opinions on what they think is needed to improve the article.

4. Perhaps in the first section, provide guidelines for creating a high-quality encyclopedic article.


What do you think? 75.31.210.156 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


RE: Moving Forward

I posted my comments to the AN/I discussion.

Yes, if I was an admin or mediator I would not want to touch this one! I agree with you that some of the active editors will not change and you can only do what you can do. I did notice after you blocked the three editors and posted the "Edit wars" section on the talk page, the tone and behavior of quite a few editors did change. A couple of the hardcore POV editors are now discussing things and not edit warring - you did make a difference and I think many editors appreciate your efforts and respect you as a NPOV editor.

Well, it's time to relax, have a shot of whisky and watch the primary results come in. Take Care, 75.31.210.156 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it gets to be too much to handle!

The last couple days I have been POV-crazy, and after a while, I feel like just throwing the monitor out my window! Example - yesterday I went to Barack Obama's main article to find his age - and I had something else I was interested in knowing but can't remember now - so I scrolled to the categories at the bottom. One of the categories that his page had been placed in was "Converts to Christianity."

I found this very contentious - because, for one, I've never read anything, nor heard Obama himself say, that he "converted" to any religion. Nothing in the article itself suggested a conversion either. He has said that his mother was very non-denominational and that he was always free to have an open mind in his choice of religion; and I've seen quotes and references to his inspiration for joining the general UCOChrist - but nothing about "converting."

To me, it seemed like a loaded "POV pusher" gun. Because there are several motivations behind why someone would want to place Obama in the "Christian converts" category... - To imply that he was formerly a Muslim, and therefore give push to those who would like to see him labeled as such for what they deem to be an effective "negative" impact; - To imply that he is a "saved" Christian, or to reinforce his status as a man of the Christian Faith, to influence people who would be positively influenced by that; - To imply that he was a Muslim once, but converted to Christianity - influencing critics of Islam who would find this to be a noble characteristic; - To imply that he's a flip-flopper when it comes to religion - influencing the people who LOVE to label opponents of their favored candidates as such, because it's been used so much in the last few presidential elections.

Anyway, I took him out of that category - and explained it. If I was being non-neutral in other peoples' opinion, they were free to put it back. Then I noticed that he was in more categories alluding to other religious variables; I think one was "Former Muslims" or something to that effect. ARgghh.

Anyway I stopped and went on to bed, because all too often, I get into these "eternal-wikianalyst-limbo" traps and by the time I realize I've spent 3 or 4 hours at it, I'm totally prune-brained.

I don't have a "moral of the story" to add - I guess I have just come to realize that I should find something else to occupy myself with, because there are six months left to this campaign, and quite possibly, I could spend that whole six months trying to argue for NPOV and never get to the end of it. Plus, I do have a little trust that people who spend time using Wikipedia to gain information are probably way smarter than the people using Wikipedia to PUSH information. Any sense in that? Dmodlin71 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wright MedCab

Hi, thanks for your post on my talk page. I have only participated in one MedCab before, regarding the Nancy Reagan article, but that was called off by the user who initiated it. If my memory serves me correctly, a mediator needs to take up the case first, then comments can be posted.

Josiah, I want to appologize to you and other editors of the Wright sermon page, because of the way I have been acting recently. Yes, I've been a hot head and I'm not usually like that :) The issue just boils my blood sometimes, and instead of taking a deep breath (or a shot of whiskey) I react in an upset manner. I really am a guy that you can talk to and work with, but I need to relax over on the Wright page. So if my recent edit warring has left you with a bad impression of me, I appologize.

And I'm truly sorry to hear about your mother. Cancer has affected my family in ways too, so I know what it is like to have a loved one undergoing chemo. Please take all the time you need.

What I said on the MedCab holds true: you are a remarkable, NPOV editor, and I strongly commend you for it. I am glad to have met you. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wright controversy page

Just a heads up that it appears that a few editors are ignoring the discussion process and persisting in editing the page to their liking. Trilemma (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Ewenss is continuing to ignore the discussed, compromise text for his version....Trilemma (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please see....

User_talk:Grsz11#Working_together_on_Wright. Ewenss (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CyberAnth Wikiquette

Hey Josiah, I have listed User:CyberAnth at the Wikiquette alert page for his behavior at the Wright controversy page, and more recent dealings with me. I thought you may be interested to comment: here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Cryptographic hash has apparently stalked me as well, and has sent the Ronald Reagan article, pretty much my claim-to-fame, into chaos. Happyme22 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that I am praying for your mother's well being and recovery. I am truly sorry; please do not feel pressured to come to Wikipedia. Respectfully, Happyme22 (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with this?

A text box at the head of the article "Pixie" says it needs citations, footnotes and sources. This is no longer the case. Can this box be removed?

Also, the plural search takes one to an articles about the band Pixies. Shouldn't they be listed as "The Pixies [Band]" and the artilces about the small beings be given the title "Pixies [Mythological Creatures]"? This would reduce confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHistory (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:TruthHistory#Pixies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with article "Pixie"

An individual is defacing the article by inserting a phrase referencing a "john" or a "Michael" into the article. This has no basis in fact and appears only meant to deface the article. Is there anything that can be done? I've reversed the edit a number of times, but I'm not into editing wars. If there were a basis for this, I'd leave it alone. It appears simply malicious.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.211.160 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:71.115.211.160. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[[Barack Obama (speech)

Thanks for the help. Looks like you forgot to move the talk page, though. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)