User talk:JokerXtreme/Archive 1

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Division of labour has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section needs to be rewritten or be completely removed. First of all the text provides no useful information. It is also terribly biased("Labour hierarchy is to a great extent inevitable, simply because no one can do all tasks at once;") which consists an obvious POV. And last, but not least, it does not fit the spirit of the rest of the article.

--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you think that saying that "Labour hierarchy is to a great extent inevitable, simply because no one can do all tasks at once..." is biased. Could you please explain? I agree that, in its current form, the section does not fit in well with the rest of the article. However, a modern view on the subject is essencial. Maybe you could bring it up to scratch? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is stated as a fact not as an opinion, not even as an opinion that is accepted by most(even which I'm not sure it is). And it certainly does not reflect what it is supposed to be...a debate. I'm not sure what exactly its purpose is. I cannot write it from scratch, unless I write something with the quality of that section. That's why I think it should be removed until it is rewritten. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel

Looking over a couple of your contributions, I see some problems. One is, where you are not well versed in well-used phrases, you are nonetheless not hesitant to set people straight, when they were never wrong. Case in point, "While traveling, Zinn died of an apparent heart attack while swimming in Santa Monica, California on January 27, 2010. He is survived by his daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn, son Jeff Zinn and five grandchildren."

'X is survived by Y' is common practice in obituaries. I am not going to argue with you about whether this is common practice on WP; you are mistaken in saying it does not make sense. Take note of this; you need to do more reading out and about in RL before you come here and presume to correct people.

The other, major, unequivocal, written in WP policy specifically, problem is that you have refactored other editor's talk page comments. Cease and desist forever, immediately. Talk pages are not subject to the same rules as mainspace. The only requirement is that they be an attempt, no matter how lame, to contribute suggestions for the improvement of the article. They are not to be removed or altered, they are not to be moved or retitled without extremely good reason. Anarchangel (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!

First of all I'd like to remind you, in all good faith, that you should never forget to assume good faith.

I admit that my English is far from fluent (not being a native speaker and all), and I wasn't aware of that expression. My intention was never to appear wiser or whatever. My intention was to improve the article and that's what (I thought) I did in that case. I believe that by pursuing that goal, more often than not, I contributed in improving Wikipedia. If some of my edits were in fact wrong, they were quickly fixed.

Now, about the deletion of someone's addition in a talk page, I assume you are referring to an edit dishing Bush. When I undid that edit, I thought that it was added in the main article and it was vandalism. When I later realized that wasn't the case, I thought about undoing my undo, but I didn't. The reason was that, although I'm not very fond of George Bush either, that text didn't really make an actual suggestion. Let's face it, he just wanted to dish him. In any case, it's not my usual practice to remove edits from the talk page.

All in all, thank you for your constructive criticism, but I would prefer it if you were more polite in your conversations with other editors. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob

Hi. Why did you delete (edit conflict) from my message at Talk:Avatar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Did you put it there yourself intentionally or was it inserted by the system? I assumed that it appeared because I started editing, then you added a reply and then when I finished my reply an edit conflict occurred. Isn't that the case? I resolved it manually, so I deleted the template. --JokerXtreme (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No, it wasn't inserted by the system. I inserted it. I tend to do this automatically to let other editors know that I may not have carefully considered the edit that was done at around the same time as my own which caused the edit conflict. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, what who are you talking to and what are you referring to, when you are saying "At least you're trying."? --JokerXtreme (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to you, regarding your attempt to find a substitute for War on Terrorism in the infobox. I considered it a good faith effort. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I wasn't trying to find an actual substitute. I was just toying with the idea in an attempt to discover the nature of the connection between the WoT and the Iraq war. Maybe that is the problem...some times I try too hard:D Fare well! --JokerXtreme (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:) --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Block request

I'll block you if you want. Please state here your unequivocal desire to be blocked for two months, that you understand this block will remain on your block log, and that you know you can request an unblock at any time on your talk page. Tan | 39 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No need as you can see :) Thanx --79.166.216.108 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Twinkle. This tool automates AFD and several other wiki tricks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is why I love AfD's, CSD's and all the Wiki process wonkery...

...because I just spent the past 30 minutes reading about Macedonian national awakenings and nationalism and considering the distinction between a "national awakening" and "nationalism," and were it not for your AfD I'd have spent the past 30 minutes...thinking about far less interesting things! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah! Plus, all those bureaucratic procedures are fun :D

There's a fine distinction between patriotism and nationalism, although the line between is too thin. Nationalism is often characterized by racism, chauvinism and other crappy stuff. But, I guess it's better for you to read the specific articles, so I won't elaborate much. Personally I choose cosmopolitanism over patriotism with nationalistic tendencies :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tfd template edits

Hi, JokerXtreme. Might I suggest using a sandbox page to perfect your ideas for the TFD templates? These templates are transcluded onto numerous articles via nominated templates, so changes that don't work right can be very disruptive. I'm sure there are lots of ways to make these better, but a bit more caution would be a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but I can't see the transcluded result unless I change the actual template. Are you aware of some way to do that? --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You would need to set up a second page (User:JokerXtreme\Tests or something like that) and then transclude your sandbox template(s) into it. A bit of a pain, but you could potentially reuse the test page for a lot of different templates. Of course with millions of pages, there are probably situations that your test page wouldn't reproduce, but at least the most obvious problems would never see "production" status. And you can even get feedback from others by inviting them to look at your test pages. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen these:Template:Tfd/sandbox, Template:Tfd/testcases, but I'm not exactly sure about how can I use it. Do you know? And is it easier than your previous suggestion? --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I should have realized that {{Tfd}} had its own sandbox and test page. Using them should be simple enough: Copy the code from Template:Tfd to the sandbox page and make your updates. Then transclude it into the testcases page to see the results. However, if you are using namespace detection, you will most likely need to use a second test page that is not in template space to see the results of some features. --RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I create Article:Tfd/testcase? --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd avoid creating anything in article space unless you absolutely have to, because test pages in mainspace have a strong chance of being speedy deleted. If the namespace detection is just "template" vs. everything else, then any non-template namespace should do. User space is certainly safest. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying for quite some time, but I'm at a loss as to how to do this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

TfD category

It appears that your recent changes to Template:Tfd had the effect, among other things, of placing nominated templates in Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion instead of Category:Templates for deletion as before. However, the former category is currently a redirect to the latter. If this change is intended to be permanent, you should copy the description page from the old category name to the new one, clean out the subcategories and other contents, and delete the old one. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed that back to Category:Templates for deletion. Should we nominate Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion for deletion? --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's up to you. Looking back, it seems there was a CFD discussion back in 2007 that supported the "Wikipedia" name, but either it was never implemented or someone changed it back later without discussion. Personally I don't much care which name is used, as long as we're internally consistent. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Wikipedia_soft_redirected_categories, I see there are a lot of empty categories, so I guess one more won't do any harm. I'll leave it like this, so it won't break anything. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFD noms with no actual rationale attached

Usually a nominator in a deletion discussion is expected to provide a reason, preferably one that has some basis in Wikipedia policy. "Delete" doesn't quite cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought that by just looking at the titles, it would be obvious that they were unnecessary. I proposed many redirects, so it would take a while to fill all that info. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, several of them are not as obvious as you thought, as is evident by the lack of support for deletion. Technically, many of these could be closed right now per WP:SPEEDYKEEP, because you as nominator have not provided any reason for deleting them, and the only other participants oppose deletion. Redirects are free, or as close to it as to make no difference, and if just one user is able to find the content they are looking for because of a particular redirect, then it was worth doing and worth keeping. So, they're not going to be deleted just because it's obvious to you that they should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever works out. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake

Hi. We seemed to have serviced that edit request at about the same time. Didn't you get an edit conflict when you went to submit the change? When you see an edit conflict, you shouldn't merely resubmit your version. That is why they have an EC, to allow the editor to make an intelligent decision of how to correct the conflict. Please take a moment to do so next time. Also, it's a good idea to include an edit summary which mentions the edit request. Edit summaries are always a good practice, and in these cases they lets other editors know there is a discussion and that more than one one editor thought the change was reasonable. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice there was a conflict. I'm having some trouble connecting to Wikipedia lately. I generally use summaries, but in the article where I need to justify some change. In the talk pages editors can actually read my replies, what is the use of sums there? BTW, why did you use nbsp? --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be something wrong with the EC mechanism. I first noticed our conflict when I went to update the talk page. I notice now that the upper text window of the EC did not include your change as it should. Did you get an edit conflict when you submitted to Earthquake? Did the upper text area look like the original text? Did you have an edit summary for the article which was lost? I'm raising the possibly broken EC over at WP:ANI as well. I hit an EC just now and the upper window was correct. Maybe it is a race condition. I used the nbsp to avoid having the number and the units break onto different lines per WP:NBSP. Celestra (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, there's probably nothing wrong with the EC mechanism. Come to think of it, there was no actual EC. Probably this must have happened: I pressed the edit button to correct it and before I submitted, you pressed edit and submitted. Then it either notified me about an EC, but I didn't realize it, because of the general lag I get from WP, so I hit edit again, or I hit edit again for some other reason. Anyway, no harm done. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about no harm done, all that matters is that the SPER got serviced. I'm still concerned about the EC not behaving correctly, though, so I'll continue to raise that subject with the admins. The normal way to do something like this is to record the version number when you begin editing. When you hit submit, the mechanism checks to see if the version has changed while you were editing and triggers the conflict resolution page if it has. That's what happened on the talk page since you had submitted your change after I had started editing. The fact that your change wasn't displayed may indicate a different path is taken to get the current version for display. The upshot is that you or I might think that nothing has changed in the part we're editing and simply resubmit our change, unintentionally clobbering whatever change had triggered the EC. Nobody's fault, but it can lead to lost content and bad feelings if the editors involved are less resonable than you and I. Anyway, see you around, Celestra (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, good luck in finding any bugs. See you in the edit requests :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Orgasm

Thanks. Maybe I will, or perhaps I should just remove the tag you object to and leave it for others to be inspired. The two links are to introductory articles on the subject which provide plenty of references which would be suitable for most academic journals, and perhaps even Wikipedia. However, as you've now focused abundant attention upon my entire edit history, in one of the more popular, and dare I say, salacious Wikipedia articles, the first thing I will go and do is create myself a sock-puppet. Cheers! --124uJkat9 14:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjer12 (talk • contribs)

What tag do you mean? Well, I'm not very familiar with the academic aspects of orgasm, so I guess I'll just leave that to others, including you, if you wish to get involved. It is very common in Wikipedia to check other users' contributions, especially newcomers'. That way, we make sure no monkey business is going on. Wikipedia is pretty much based on transparency, to keep "corruption" under control. Have in mind that having sock puppets is against WP policies. If you do, we will find out, hunt you down and kick your ass :P ...so welcome again :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror

Hi! I see you have tagged Long_War_(21st_century) as to be merge with War on Terror, but you have tagged Etymology_of_War_on_Terrorism as to be merged with Long_War_(21st_century)... --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to amend accordingly. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I guess merge all to War on Terror. Although, it might be better you did the corrections, so it won't appear I'm acting arbitrarily. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I changed that already. Filest (aktl) 09:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be more reasonable, if the result to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Etymology_of_War_on_Terrorism was to merge to War on Terror since the Long_War_(21st_century) is to be merged with War on Terror. How else could that work? Besides, if you take a better look at the discussion, no one is advocating a merger with Long War. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of War on Terrorism now has a tag saying merge to war on terror. I think that's sufficient. Fletsi (aklt) 10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks much for your editing help!

Nwiesen (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:France

Just a heads up, we edit conflicted on the talk page, but we also differed on the resolution. I added a slighly shorter version of what he asked for because I think his observation was valid. Many islands are outside of the boundaries of any continent. Hawaii, for exaple. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I wasn't second guessing you. Celestra (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, no worries there. Well technically Hawaii is part of Oceania: Polynesia and French Polynesia is a subregion of Oceania as well:List_of_Oceanian_countries_and_territories, but I guess there are two ways of looking at this, none of which is wrong. The way you put it seems more specific and informative, so all's good :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

CMT Poll

In the on-going poll at the Christ myth theory's talk page you said that you oppose inclusion of the category on the grounds that "For something to be included in the pseudohistory category, there should be consensus among specialists of the field that it is a false theory, which I don't think exists." If this is your concern I'd like to encourage you to reconsider your vote. I've taken the liberty of reproducing just a few quotation from the [FAQ] below:

• There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 34

• Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 14 & 16

• No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.

James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, pp. xxi–xxv

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

• I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God, New York: HarperOne, 2007, p. 188

• [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism.

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008, p. 25

• The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church.

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

• There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.

Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

• I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

• Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.

William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009

• [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988, p. 218

Please reconsider your vote. Eugene (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JokerXtreme. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request(Coalition Casualties Update)

1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629, UK: 3,608, Canada : +400, Germany: 166, Australia: 120, Romania: 44)

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

119.152.61.170 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)