Last modified on December 4, 2014, at 14:41

User talk:JoeyJ/Archive1

Return to "JoeyJ/Archive1" page.
The symbol of Anarchism

Something you may not know...Edit

In the English language, the names of countries, such as "Egypt," are what are known as "proper nouns," and are thus spelled with the first letter in upper case. The same goes with adjectives based on country names or religions, such as "Estonian," or "Islamist." EddyJ 09:46, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

OK I will note it in future --JoeyJ 10:51, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Idi AminEdit

"In 1971 he coup in power..." What does that mean? Do you mean he "staged a coup"? Also, what does "tenue" mean? You've used that word several times in your edits. I don't think I've ever seen it before. EddyJ 13:12, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Yes I mean staged the coup. --JoeyJ 13:14, 23 June 2013 (EDT)


Hi, Joey. Thanks for categorizing my Get rich quick schemes article, even though it's just a stub.[

No matter.--JoeyJ 13:27, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

Account promotedEdit

Your account has been promoted. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

What does it mean? Am I a administator now?--JoeyJ 08:58, 9 October 2013 (EDT)

No, it means that you now are trusted enough to block vandals and spammers. brenden 19:47, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
Thank you!--JoeyJ 09:14, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

Int'l Democratic UnionEdit

I have made the International Democratic Union page a redirect rather than a deletion candidate. If you'd still rather it be deleted, feel free to revert. WesleyS 13:37, 22 November 2013 (EST)

I prefer the deletion because International DemocratIC Union is wrong spelled.--JoeyJ 14:39, 22 November 2013 (EST)

Great work on MandelaEdit

Great edits to Mandela; I just got back from California which is why I only saw them now; I spruced up the presentation of the references a little bit (just throwing in some templates), but I think that section is perfect so far.--IDuan 19:44, 17 December 2013 (EST)

Reverting vandalismEdit

I'm not an expert, and maybe there are spiffier ways to do this, but the method I use is this: Go to the history listing. The last (top) item will list the vandalized version. The one before it (or two before it, or whatever you want to revert to; pay close attention) will be the one you want to revert to. Click on the date/time stamp for that item. It will bring up that version and say "This is an old revision" blah blah blah. Click edit. You will see big warnings that you are editing the wrong version, and that if you save from there, later edits will be lost!!! That is, of course, exactly what you want. Click save. SamHB 12:58, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Pat RobertsonEdit

Why was my edit reverted on this page? It was not parody. If you check the reference I provided, he really did say those things and he really does believe in evolution. Thanks, --JonY 17:18, 30 May 2014 (EDT)

  • But if you compare Pat Robertson to Hitler, it really looks like a parody.--JoeyJ 04:45, 31 May 2014 (EDT)

5 maintenance tasks that need to be done - some of which could be automatedEdit

Some editors like to do wiki maintenance tasks. I started on two of these maintenance task, but I don't have the time to do it all myself.

There are 5 maintenance task that need to be done:

1. De-orphan pages which have no category tags or links to them from other pages.

2. Remove about 8% of the wiki pages which are ex-editors' user pages and user talk pages who have not edited in the last 3 years. And this task could probably be automated, but it could be done manually too.

There is a list of editors/users here:

If you go through the list and put delete page tags on the user pages and user talk pages of users who have been inactive for 3 years, then those pages can be deleted.

You can also find the pages that need to be deleted by looking at the pages that have these templates on them and then see if the users have been active in the last 3 years: and

3. Delete the templates that are never being used.

4. Build up the 2 sentence stub articles so they have at least 500 words. Using the random page search function, I estimate the stub articles are at least 30-40% of the wiki articles.

5. Within 10 years, about 50% of links become broken links. Xenu's Link Sleuth can crawl your website and find these dead links plus make a report:

Alternatively, using this Firefox tool or this chrome tool these dead links can be found.

I did this link maintenance already for the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles.

I think these 5 maintenance tasks being done would enhance the user experience for the readers plus these are maintenance tasks that need to be done. Conservative 12:37, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Alright I will focus on the "Orphaned Pages".--JoeyJ 04:44, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Automating some of these tasksEdit

I mentioned Xenu's Link Sleuth above in order to help automate spotting the dead links. I think that deleting the the inactive editors who have not edited for 3 years could be automated as well. Maybe using something like User:EdBot. Conservative 13:36, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Mate I'll help out if ya want.

re: removing User pages and User talk pages for editors who have been inactive for 3 yearsEdit

If you identify the User pages and User talk pages for editors who have been inactive for 3 years via speedy deletion tags, a Conservapedian who has done professional programming in the past, will create a bot to delete those pages.

Via the newly created bot, other pages which have those speedy deletion tags would be removed at the same time. Conservative 18:29, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

About pages needing deletionEdit

JoeyJ, thank you for marking those pages for deletion at CP as you know I wanted to delete extraneous pages. And I was happy to delete them for you. I have increased demands on my time so I regret to say that I won't be able to assist you as far as deleting pages for the foreseeable future. I am sorry about this. I wish there were more hours in the day so I could do it, but I cannot.

Maybe another Admin or the owner of the website can assist you.

Again, thank for your previous help in this matter. Conservative 23:53, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

No problem. There are enough other administrators. Thank you for deleting the pages.--JoeyJ 06:58, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

Please don't delete user pagesEdit

This is not meant as a criticism of your work. I fully respect what you are doing in many areas. However, I don't think you should be deleting (that is, marking for deletion) anyone's user and user talk pages. Well, pages that were vandalism or spam right from the start should be deleted. But other than that, they should be kept. Even those of users that have left a long time ago.

Some of the users whose pages have recently been deleted are pretty much "founding" or "charter" members of Conservapedia. Well, not literally, but they were there nearly at the start. Some of them were Andy's original home-school students! Others were contributing during the "glory days" of 2008 or so. Many of those people have gone on to college and the rest of their lives, but they deserve to have their work kept. During the "glory days" era, there were good-natured contests to see which team could make the most contributions. There seem to have been 5 of them; see Category:Conservapedia_Contest. (I was around during that era, but did not participate in the contests.) I wish those days would come back, but I am not optimistic.

Aside from the contests, those days saw a lot of contributions by a lot of dedicated people, in many subjects.

Among the pages that were deleted in 2014, I see that, just off the top of my head, these people made constructive contributions, and should have their history preserved:

Deborah, Foxtrot, BethanyS, Tash, Jallen, Jaques, Crocoite, Fantasia, WilliamBeason, Tims, Jinxmchue, DeanS, JerryCa. I forget Bethany's sister's name.

Some of these were prolific contributors in the subject I was interested in, mathematics: Fantasia, WilliamBeason, Foxtrot.

Any large wiki project should have its history preserved, so that newcomers can see it.

When I have more time to go over people's contributions, I'm going to ask Andy to restore these pages.

But other than that, keep up the good work. I mean it.

SamHB 23:45, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

  • Sorry. I only performed Conservative´s request. He asked me to remove user pages of contributors, who are not active for 3 years. (See [1]).--JoeyJ 03:45, 31 July 2014 (EDT)
Please please please don't be offended, but I have undone your marking of user box templates to be deleted. Most of those were rather dumb, but they illustrate a time when people had a little fun on their user pages, rather than all the fighting, vaping, and blocking that goes on today. The one about fish reminded me of the great donut war. That was before my time, but when I came to CP and did a lot of looking around, I found that all the "kool kids" were arguing about whether they like donuts, and whether cows are tasty. That innocent era will probably never come back, and it's too bad.
I remembered who BethanyS's sister is. She's User:SharonS and User_talk:SharonS. Both sisters are long gone, of course, but Sharon's pages are still around. You ought to take a look at them, to get a glimpse of what that era was like. Before it gets vaped too. I looked up to those two for their good-natured behavior.
Yes, you were simply responding to a request from Cons. He should not have made that request, and you should not honor it. I would complain to him about it directly, but (a) his talk page is locked, and (b) he never listens. I think I know at least part of why he is doing this. One is to erase the memory of that kinder, gentler time, and another is to dilute his vaping of things that he finds personally uncomfortable. Those being, among other things, all references to the "book for middle school students" about evolution, and some stuff about statistics (possibly the Generalized linear model) that I called him out on and challenged him to a debate on. Can't find the refs right now, but he's sensitive about the subject, and perhaps about math in general. So be aware of that when he asks you to mark things for deletion.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
SamHB 21:58, 4 August 2014 (EDT)
JoeyJ, great job helping to get rid of the extraneous web pages. Keep up the good work. Pay no attention to SamHB's verbose, wrongheaded and quarrelsome speculations. Conservative 22:40, 4 August 2014 (EDT)


Sorry I couldn't help more there Joey. I am in the middle of getting my wife off to work. (Coffee, breakfast, cut lunch etc.,) It's early morning here. AlanE 16:25, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

Please don't delete user pagesEdit

SharonS was practically a founding member of CP. It's true that the last edit to her talk page was made by someone who later turned out to be persona non grata, but that edit was a reversion of clear vandalism.

TimS (Svendsen, if memory serves) was an extremely respected administrator of CP. He stuck his neck out for me when I was being harassed.

Please show some respect for your forefathers and foremothers. SamHB 16:56, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

Sorry but you have to talk with Conservative about that. It is not my idea, but he asked me to do this. You can contact him at User:Conservative/mail.--JoeyJ 17:37, 18 August 2014 (EDT)
I let the user pages by influence users stay, but I continue to delete user pages by unimportant users and unused templates. Is that ok for you?--JoeyJ 17:46, 18 August 2014 (EDT)
JoeyJ, the owner of the website is in agreement with me that significantly old user pages and user talk pages, should be deleted. Keep the user pages and user talk pages of people who have edited in the last 4 years.
You can keep the SharonS user page and talk page since she is a Bureaucrat which is the highest rank of Admin plus she was a founding member. Get rid of the rest though as she is an exception to the rule of removing the user pages and user talk pages of people who have not edited in 4 years.
Also, after you put the tags on the pages for the deletion, then a campaign can be launched to do the deleting.
Should someone return after 4 years of inactivity, their user page and user talk page can easily be restored. An admin can easily do this. Conservative 18:48, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

re: deleting superfluous pagesEdit

I think you may soon receive some good news about your ability to delete superfluous pages. If you are given the ability to do this, please remove superfluous user pages and user talk pages. Conservative 15:25, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Oh, thank you for expanding my abilities. Of course I will delete the old user pages.--JoeyJ 15:28, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

re: deleting historic pagesEdit

Let me see if I've got this: You deleted the user and talk pages of renowned sysops, who were almost-founding-members, Crocoite/DeanS and MountainDew/DanH? (Well, Crocoite/DeanS was done, at your request, by someone else, before you got delete rights.) In case you're wondering, the "first-name-and-last-initial" rule was not enforced in the early days, so people could choose handles like Crocoite and MountainDew. When the rules started to be enforced, these people changed their names so they wouldn't be guilty of hypocrisy when they blocked people.

What next? Deleting all the contest pages? They no longer make much sense when it isn't possible to see who those people were. Math articles? They've been a disaster for years, and no one works on them. Same for physics and chemistry. (Except relativity, of course :-)

Please do not aid, abet, enable, or do the bidding of people who are engaged in questionable and possibly destructive activities. These people (Cons and Andy) are perfectly capable of deleting pages themselves, and they have enough historical perspective to know what they are doing. With all due respect, you do not. You do not have a good feel for which users were unimportant.

There are plenty of other, constructive, things you can do, and you have been doing them. Please continue with that.

SamHB 00:01, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

OK, I will stop deleting them. Conservative, if you read this: You can take my right to delete articles. I came here to write articles about politics and not to have problems with other users.--JoeyJ 06:10, 28 August 2014 (EDT)


You merged Dumbarton with the Firth of Clyde. I thought this strange as they are two completely separate things - one a town and the other a waterway.

Consequently, I have "merged" the Firth with the River Clyde by means of a redirect (as I said I would do in a talk page) as the Firth is a logical and geographic extension of the river. At the same time I expanded the information on the Firth from its pathetic little stub to a bigger more informative stub.

And I deleted all information on Dumbarton because it looked silly sitting in the middle of the waterway article when no other place was mentioned. Dumbarton is important not only for its preeminence in the golden age of Scottish ship-building and industry generally, but in the story of the United Nations and for the wonderful little concerto for orchestra of Igor Stravinsky that took its name. It deserves its own article.
I would like you to delete Dumbarton so that I can recreate it from scratch {and my saved Word Doc. of course). I have no problem with my articles being edited - I do object to them being made to look like the work of another.
Cheers AlanE 22:46, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
AlanE, I propose a compromise. I restored the article as per your request. You can further expand it. I started to expand it via the external link section. Conservative 22:55, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
JoeyJ, the Dumbarton article according to a free page word count tool is 212 words long which is a respectable length and not merely a stub article. If you could be so kind, please do not delete articles of such length. Conservative 23:02, 8 September 2014 (EDT)
Sorry, I only converted the propose by Ed Poor. [2] --JoeyJ 07:52, 9 September 2014 (EDT)

User page deletionEdit

  • Why did you delete my user page? -- AmerICan 09:02, 9 September 2014 (EDT)
AmerIcan, some of the editors who haven't edited in 3 years had their user pages deleted. If you want to see why we did this, please read this post. It was easy to restore the user page so I did this. Sorry for any inconvenience and no offense to you intended. Conservative 14:18, 9 September 2014 (EDT)


Thanks for all the wiki work you have been doing. We really appreciate all your fine work.

Second, Karajou is going to be working on getting his bird articles to be at least 600 words long. Generally speaking, web visitors don't like stub articles and prefer articles that are at least 600 words long.

Next, try to avoid creating redirects unless they are very necessary. Also, endeavor to create new articles with original content that are at least 600 words long or expand existing articles so they meet the 600 word threshold or are at least closer to this standard. This will create happier web visitors who become return web visitors.

Again, thanks for all your contributions. Conservative 19:00, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

I appended my last edit to your page to say that if you just want to expand existing articles so they are closer to being 600 words long that would be good too. Conservative 05:28, 17 September 2014 (EDT)
Thanks for all the editing of articles and other work you have done. Much appreciated. Just wanted to clarify something. As far as avoiding creating stub articles and endeavoring to do articles 600 words or longer or add content to existing articles, I just wanted to say that is a guiding principle and not an ironclad rule. Also, try not to ruffle AlanE's feathers inadvertently. He has been editing for some time now. Again, thanks for all your good work. Conservative 06:02, 26 September 2014 (EDT)
Ok, I don´t want to ruffel AlanE. I just transposed the merge requests.--JoeyJ 07:13, 26 September 2014 (EDT)
Thanks! Conservative 04:54, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Theory and PracticeEdit

I was disappointed that you simply deleted my attempt to get someone to pay attention to the Theory and practice article. Deleting my notice is not the way to improve that article. And improving articles is something you want, isn't it? If you really thought that some action needed to be taken, but that you are not qualified to do it, you could have left a note on the talk page of any of CP's more prolific contributors. Heck, you could have left a "put your money where your mouth is" note on my talk page, and I might have done something about it. As a respected sysop, I think you have a responsibility to set a good example. Much more so than an exhausted, burned-out, "worker bee" who has been in the slammer 13 times in 7 years.

In case you didn't know, that article is a typical stub made by someone who had quite a reputation for making such stubs, and perhaps hoping other people would clean them up. He would search the internet for interesting quotes (and many of them are interesting), and make stub articles so terse that, in some cases, they were nothing but the quote. Often the topic of the article had little or nothing to do with the quote. The "theory and practice" article was typical. It had one quote for which the only relevance was that it contained the phrase. It was about learning to fly an airplane. If you Google the phrase, you will get 6 million results, even without taking off the quotes. So I have taken that quote out completely. If you want to save it, it's in the edit history. (Nothing is ever lost, unless someone vapes it.) The other quote was about chess, and I have moved it there. Its only connection with the phrase "theory and practice" is that it contains that phrase.

Now I don't consider "theory and practice" to be a particularly important page. But it shouldn't be deleted. It should be turned into an article that says what the phrase means and how it is typically used. As in "Your idea looks good in theory, but in practice it isn't likely to work". (By the way, do we have an article on "unintended consequences"? There's a link between the two concepts, right?)

So I have partly rehabilitated the article by saying what the phrase means, but it needs some detail about what "theory" means in that context and what "practice" means in that context. Could you write that? Something along the lines of "'Theory' refers to how something ought to happen, based on purely intellectual predictions, while 'practice' refers to the outcome that might actually happen, and is often quite different." Well, that's not very good. Could you expand on that?

One more quick note: Don't worry about upsetting AlanE. He's a good guy. We've known each other for a long time.

SamHB 13:45, 4 October 2014 (EDT)