User talk:Joshbuddy/Jun06

RE:Archiving of talk pages

Hey, is it possible I can get that for my user talk? Would be terrifically helpful. Cheers. joshbuddy^talk 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It sure is possible, just take a squizz at User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. Thanks for your interest, Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

Nearly this entire article looks like original research. But I don't want to arbitrarily clip out most of it to a stub so how about some discussion?George 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandal User:209.204.112.73

This IP popped up on John Roberts, a page I watch for vandalism. I gave a level 3 warning, in light of previous activity and a recently expired block. If I were to catch this one again vandalizing, on which alert page would it be best to post about it? --CTSWyneken 13:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Addenda: he vandalized again. I have him up to a level 4. --CTSWyneken 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go there if he goes once more. --CTSWyneken 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses FAC

I know PR can be frustrating, I;ve had bad experiences there in the past. I'll leave some examples, but I'm currently translating an article from German, so I'll be tied up for maybe 45 minutes or so. Happy to be of help, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To cite or not to cite...

Dear Josh: Thanks for the note! It all depends on whether we think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not. 8-) Traditional encyclopedias, where the articles are written by experts in the field, have no citations. They lists sources in the bibliography and leave it at that. But where anybody can edit, you need a referee. So the wiki policy is to cite.

That means we aspire to be a set of general journal articles or book chapters. The question, then, is how much should we cite. (as you know, most articles have no citations at all) The way our rules read, we should cite everything.

But do we really want every third word cited? Probably not.

So, what would be a minimum? Every scholar agrees anything in quotation marks should be cited in scholarly work. Every scholar agrees that summary statements of facts not typically common knowledge should be cited. (hence, my request for sources for the stats. "Lies, lies, statistics and lies!")

As far as the structure of the article, you're right that the intro should be a summary of the article and need not have cites. Ideally, eveything in the intro is in more detail in the body of the article, and, with articles like Jesus, is itself a summary of more detailed specialized articles. As such, it does not need to be referenced. (although, our rules.... 8-) )

If you're interested, watch the talk at WP:CITE. Sometime this month I hope to open up a discussion to make our rules more like those I teach my college students. --CTSWyneken 11:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice... it depends on whether it is open to challenge. I'd rather put the cite in and make it look a little funny, rather than risk constant grief. I worry about the monotheism statement without the cite for that very reason. Of course, it may not stop people anyway... From a wishy-washy librarian... --CTSWyneken 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Josh. I have enjoyed seeing the information on the organization being presented so clearly. However, you do not always use quotes and I was wondering if you have the permission of the brothers to put this information on wiki? Especially info from the OM book when it is given ONLY to those that are baptized. Please take this into consideration. Have a nice day. 169.133.255.4 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) t_licious79@yahoo.com

Interface for bots

Hi, not sure if you have seen some of the features i've been adding to the query interface, but I think your bot might benefit greatly (speed, ease of code, possibly some new features that i can add) by using Query API -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php . I am currently discussing adding of the size change to the recentchanges query parameter (need some changes to the db schema), but even now you can already request multiple pages, with or without the raw content, all in one request to the server. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --Yurik 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

House to house

I have been leaving it alone while the massive copyedit is underway. My opinion is that (per the list you sent me) Franz's point is quite weak. The term H2h is the second most common way the greek phrase is translated, and that only by one. Saying that combining the phrases is not neccessary is definitely splitting hairs as the other two phrases are used on the scale of single digits. The rest of the ways it is translated are fairly ambiguous, (in every house could be supportive of house to house) leaving the reader open to interpretation. I believe the information is therefore misrepresented by Franz, and therfore the article is poorer for it.

In spite of my opinion however, the information is in the correct place but I believe it should be worded to reflect that this is Franz's opinion and his 'evidence' is speculative - without making it original research.George 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We finally got to it. The information you put on my talk page should be summarized and used instead of the 27 translations comment. The translations make no difference as per your restated position that the way the phrase is translated is not what Franz is criticising.

As far as the most effective form of witnessing goes, (I believe this is a personal discussion here) many forms were tried by JW's and house to house has produced the greatest results. Naturally some may have different opinions. I prefer business or street territory, as these produce more contacts. However one must study the bible in a comfortable setting and home is the most comfortable place. George 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:Tawkerbot2 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - The bot is clearly not a Leafs fan :) -- Tawker 04:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Language

What programming language is the best bot ever in? GangstaEB & friends 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia bots be written in anyother language?-GangstaEB & friends 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Javascript one? GangstaEB & friends 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Can you make it to work of Lupin's anti-vandal tool, too? Sorry to be a pest. GangstaEB EA 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Penton's book

Actually I followed the link provided in the reference. It showed the Intro to the book for free. George 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .

TB2 might not, but I watch user pages. HawkerTyphoon 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, its bot testing, no block will be coming here -- Tawker 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A-ha - sorry. My bad - guess I've proved that at least someone is watching userpages though, eh? Apologies! HawkerTyphoon 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nom

Thanks. Support finally in place (after two edit conflicts). Petros471 22:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

I have thought about the situation when a user registers multiple accounts via anonymous proxies in order to circumvent a long block or even to circumvent 3RR policy or some voting (AfD, RFA, etc.). You have to be a checkuser to check your suspicion that underlying IP is an openproxy, ordinary RFCU would not be effective as the IPs are different and the contribution-only proof that of sockpuppetry is never 100% accurate.

I thought that maybe we could have a bot that would look through the top 10 sites with lists of open proxies and close them all preventively. Or have a requirement for the RFCU to always google all the IP numbers.

Open proxies constitute only a small amount of Wiki-vandals but they are usually determined, Internet-literate and can cause a lot of damage (see e.g. User:Bonaparte, his socks and proxies). abakharev 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and User:Klava76

Please inform User:Klava76 why his edit is wrong. I don't want to violate WP:3RR. - CobaltBlueTony 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

JW edits

Hello, Joshbuddy!

• I disagree with your removal of the phrase "by Bible requirements as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses". The portion "as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses" distinguishes the Bible requirements as something inpterpreted by JWs, which is perfectly NPOV, unless you're debating the fact that there are requirements in the Bible which have been diversely inpterpreted by many groups claiming faith in the Bible.
  
  It seems that this removal attempts to take away the strong attachment to the Bible felt by Witnesses. The statement was worded such that it acknowledged that these Bible requirements are "understood" in a certain way particular to the Witnesses, which is all that is needed. Please, explain why "Bible" needed to be deleted from the statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Copied to article talk page.)

Awaiting your reply here. - CobaltBlueTony 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)