User talk:Jossi/Archives/15

Free Republic editors

I know you have been involved in mediating between FAAFA, Ben, Bryan, and Deano, and I wanted to let you know about this arbitration request that I have filed. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I added my statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Epithets

It's kinda interesting to compare the previous AfD with this one. Quite a change in mood. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, JP ... I sense a maturity that was not there two years ago. There is hope ... 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, good morning. I don't know how to use hardly any of this Wikipedia format material. Im not trying to be secretive or anything I just think this email would be the best way for me to get my message to you. I hope that Im not inconveniencing you. I'm a new user who just got out the US ARMY (etsed) after 4 years 3 and some change overseas. Stationed in Baumholder Germany APO AE 09034. I mainly use the Wikipedia as quick reference. I am trying to add content or to do an edit to the Prince Rogers Nelson page. Specifically the section on his personal life. "{In the 80's and early 90's Prince was known as something of playboy dating many celebrities discreetly and being linked to others through rumor and innuendo. He dated The lead singer of the Bangles Susanna Hoffs and movie star Kim Basinger. He dated actresses's Sherilyn Fenn, Troy Beyer, Tara Leigh Patrick (whom he later re-named Carmen Electra.) He dated Marvin Gayes daughter and former Ford Modeling Agency model Nona Gaye. He dated Denise Matthews (whom he re-named Vanity,) Patricia Kotero (whom he re-named Appolonia,) Sheena Easton, and Shelia E. It has also been rumored that he secretly dated Madonna.}" This is the edit I want to add, but that keeps getting deleted. I read most of the FAQ on editing and referencing and citing, and I have been trying to go by the book. My content keeps getting deleted and I received a message just now User talk:Lexlutha From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Prince (musician) Please stop repeatedly adding unsourced/rumour-based information to this article. Placing a URL in your edit summary is not the correct way to add a reference to an article, nor is dropping a bunch of weblinks in the bottom of the page. Please consult Wikipedia's style guides on the proper way to add references to articles. Unverifiable information such as this will be removed. Please pay attention to the edit summaries left by other editors. Repeated, disruptive edits can be considered vandalism. These are the same edits you made using account User:24.4.122.127 and they were reverted multiple times before. Thanks. - eo 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lexlutha" Views User page Discussion Edit this page + History Move Unwatch They said all I have is rumours and gossip but I have referenced all my material I haven't plagiarized anyone. The information I have on Sherilyn Fenn, Troy Beyer, and Nona Gaye is all listed right on they're own wikipedia pages the Wikipedia says they all dated Prince. I've listed my other references such as http://www.nndb.com/people/836/000023767 nndb.com and http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/prince.htm http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/prince.html Im pretty new to the online community and I have accesed the page in question from my AOL 9.0 VR browser and from my IE 7 Browser but all from the same computer. Can you please help me out. My Email is coldcrushd[at]aol.com Thank you and have a great weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexlutha (talk • contribs)

WP:NPOV

Would you please explain your reason for reverting in the Bias section of the talk page. Dhaluza 13:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will reply in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the barnstar. You must have noticed my obsession with filling out a couple of categories as of late. Anyway I appreciate it :).PelleSmith 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! Dhaluza 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicagostyledog is a JH sock I think

Look at the IP for this early sock: [1] verses the talk page entry [2]. I guess it could be a BfP sock, but the Roskam connection plus the quick IP response of a known JH sock IP seems to indicate a JH sock. I updated the userpage for Joehazelton. If you agree, please update the talk page as it is protected pending the checkuser I filed [3]. --Tbeatty 05:53, 19 February 2007

This has already been taken care of so no worries. --Tbeatty 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty's actions (again)

HE changes ChicagoStyleDog from being a sock of BryanFromPalatine, which was an ADMIN finding to JoelHalaztine, then he adds THIS to the RfA, when I was acting on an ADMIN ruling, not a 'pretend' Admin!!!

"False accusations. [4] Followed by backtracking [5][6]"

This is bullshit. I'm changing the finding back too. - FAAFA 07:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find all of Joehazelton socks here. You can clearly see the range of IP's 69.220.184.*. --Tbeatty 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming way too tedious to deal with. I am starting to regret my offer of help.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Please let me know your reasons for reverting my edit to the language section, at which you left the edit summary "You have changed the meaning of a long-standing formulation." I asked for input beforehand and received positive feedback. The issue was that it was WP:ATT itself that was changing the wording and intent of WP:V, which explicitly calls for English-language references to be of equal quality. If you could explain in the applicable section of the talk page that would help keep the discussion in one place. Thanks in advance. Dekimasuが... 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate vote

Just a courtesy note that I struck a duplicate vote you made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crum375; you were #5 as well as #87, so I struck the latter. Essjay (Talk) 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... Ooops... (thanks) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'S no big deal really, happens quite often, just wanted you to know. :) Essjay (Talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We may need to block you for being a sockpuppet of yourself. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Must be the age thing... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We've heard it all before. Next it'll be that your computer's been compromised. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

SSB's virgin birth

Hi there, regarding this edit of yours, you might want to see that this is part of an ongoing (?) discussion on the talk-page (see Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Minor_correction). Besides that, I happen to have the source text and I can confirm that this is what is being said. It is a matter of semantics whether the article should mention "virgin birth" or "immaculate conception" (though the latter is closer to the circumstances) but the main problem relates to which article on Wikipedia should be linked to in order to properly explain what is being said.

Viz., SSB cannot be the result of a Virgin Birth because his mother was not a virgin (SSB had older siblings). "Immaculate conception" is more fitting although the WP article on that focuses almost entirely on the Christian doctrine. Parthenogenesis is next-to-useless because it is not relevant to humans/mammals, so an arbitrary decision was made to link to Virgin_Birth#Philosophical_controversy. Please participate in the discussion on the talk-page to explain your edit as its purpose is not currently clear to me. There is no question about going against the sources because we are trying to properly explain (or wikilink) what the source is saying. Ekantik ^talk 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph A. Cafasso revert

I'm puzzled why you would label this edit to Joseph A. Cafasso as defamatory. I'm not accusing him of anything, just pointing out that his name comes up in many blogs, and that it's not favorable. Anyone googling his name can see that clearly this guy is drawing fire for some reason. Alcarillo 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Farrakhan

If you are going to protect the page, please do not protect it with the dispute potentially libelous content in it. The tags disputing the neutrality have constantly been removed by two editors. I have explained the NPOV and other violations, none have been cared for by 2 bullies reverting every objection i raise. I have to suggest that the entire antisemitic section be reduced as a matter of safty, legally as it is the section under serious dispute. it contains original research, and editors POV. A disputed tage needs to at least b added. to let reader know. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an NPOV tag and a cleanup tag on that article, so readers are forewarned about possible problems with the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan

I haven't been paying attention to the edit war on this article, but stumbled across a couple of problems I cannot fix myself as I am not a sysop. Most importantly, the fifth paragraph under "Leadership" under "Nation of Islam" lists Barrack Obama as an organizer of the Millions More Movement, a claim which is not supported by any citation and seems implausible, given Obama's much more centrist politics. I googled "Barack Obama" and "Millions More Movement" (in quotes) and only found him in an incredibly long list (maybe 100) of "co-conveners", and certainly not given any prominence. Also, in the same paragraph is "The hyperbolically named Million Man March" which sounds of POV pushing. Natalie 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to raise that concern at the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it is located at [here]. Ideally I would love if every could 200 articles a day - but seeing as how the WPBiography 255 participants, if everyone were to simply assess and rate 50 articles a day (most of them are of stub class), we could eliminate our entire backlog of unassessed articles in 10 days. Thank you for helping in any way you can! --Ozgod 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

May want to watch this...

...a user User:Mec_modifier who you left a welcome message for has... creatively edited it. 68.39.174.238 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FR

Hey Jossi. You recently added comments to another editors/anonIP evidence section. This is a technical violation of the evidence page rules. Others have piled on. Would you mind moving your comments to your section or the talk page so it doesn't turn into a discussion page? --Tbeatty 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake, but you should not have made that call, and you should not have remove these comments. That is for the clerk to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I apologize. I didn't think it would be a big deal since it was just commentary. --Tbeatty 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

Hi.

I would like to know what was the point in "cleaning" my text (vocabulary lately corrected) from the article Architecture.

Regards HrqFox 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by HrqFox (talk • contribs)

I am responding in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet at The Secret (2006 film)

Hi Jessi... I recommend that user WikiLeni—not to be confused with myself, WikiLen—be blocked as an obvious spammer and probable Spock Puppet. See my comments at user talk:WikiLeni. —Thanks, WikiLen 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef for too similar a name. User needs to create a new account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, —WikiLen 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on website link

Hi Jossi , would appreciate a cool head here as this may tend to become heated , if you at all interested your input would be most welcome. This is on the talk page of Adi Da and the link is to lightmind.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Da#Lightmind.com_needs_to_go_.3F --Scribe5 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FR differerence of opinion

Hi J - willl you weigh in on this? These are facts. Facts are NPOV. The only thing that 'might' be POV is the use of the word 'only' ( as in 'only 100' ) Rally thanks - FaAfA 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look? Thanks in advance FaAfA 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo

The article has been repeatedly vandalised since the removal of protection. I am currently overseas and ave less access to a computer. It's very difficult to maintain this article.

--Amandajm 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see... I have sprotected it again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

You removed the disputed tag [7] while there is a dispute going on. You only need to see the recent hsitory of the article to verify that. Also, in your edit summary your referred to "talk". The situation there, however, is far from agreement over key issues.Bless sins 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take discussion to that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• re:[8], yes indeed we do. we certainly don't declare the POVs of non-scholarly polemical tracts as factual however. ITAQALLAH 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in that article's talk page and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed/likely socks of GeorgeBP

Here's a link to the check user of the sock puppeteer who was on Ann Coulter and the associated talk. [9] Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a sock puppet related question, CuriousDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have the same agenda as GeorgeBP, who was operating using dynamic IP's from Brazil. In this edit CuriousDog re-signs an edit for an anonymous IP address that re-signed an edit that re-signed the same edit that CuriousDog forgot to sign. These IP's 201.9.27.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 201.9.37.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) both come from Brazil, very similarly to the 201.9.*.* IPs you blocked because of the check user request above. --Dual Freq 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make a request for investigation at WP:CU. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the same Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GeorgeBP one? --Dual Freq 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Open a new one and link to the previous one. That will make it easier for admins manning the checkuser tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more were found on the check user. (Unsurprisingly, GeorgeBP and Curious Dog are likely to be the same person per check user.) Kyaa the Catlord 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

page changes

I am new to Wikipedia. Yesterday I added parts of my resume to the existing wiki page on me. And today it has disappeared. Are there rules against the subject of a page making changes to it? If so, please forgive this newbie. I notice the bibliography I added is still there. Please email me your thoughts on this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jane English (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello Jane. Yes, I removed your resume to the talk page so that interested editors can look at the material and find ways to include what can be included within our content policies. Please read our policy on autobiographies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Immune system:

You recently protected[10] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against Wikipedia policy to semi-protect articles currently featured on the main page?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have unprotected it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo!

I applaud your apparent decision to seek Dispute Resolution[11]. As you seem to have an issue with cited, sourced material that is a good faith edit in keeping with Wikipedia style that I have added to Prem Rawat[12], I think this is the best way for the issue to become resolved. I look forward to working with you as you move forward in the process. Mael-Num 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not an "apparent decision", it is the way that Wikipedia works and it is policy.
2. We have used the dispute resolution process just recently and hopefully editors will continue to do mso
3. You did not add any material, you are placing undue-eight material on the lead that was already in the article, and that is the core of the dispute
4. I welcome your change of attitude, that I hope it is sincere and not sarcastic, and invite you to take the discussion to that article's talk page, and not continue it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3rr

[13] I added the times that you asked for. futurebird 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) attended should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have much time this week. Sorry... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cool Off"

I don't know why you've got a burr in your saddle. Not sure why you think you need to follow me around and defend yourself and/or attempt to discredit every word I say[14][15]. No idea why you'd try to lie about it[16] despite the clear and continuing evidence to the contrary. I do know that it should stop. I also know that if you've got something to say to me, say it to me on my talk page. Don't sully up other peoples' pages with your little agenda. I know you think you have something to prove to other people, and that's why you try to make such "rebuttals" as public as possible, but it just makes you come off as a schmuck. Take some advice: your own. Cool off. Mael-Num 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Some of that came off as a bit harsh. I apologize. But you do need to relax a little. We don't always agree, but we're definitely not enemies. Let's both of us try to remember that, okay? Mael-Num 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Mael. We attract more bees with honey, than with vinegar. No one likes to be called a "bully" or a "schmuk". Let's put these aside and lets keep our assessments of others to ourselves, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see you as either of these things, Jossi. At least no more than I am. I suspect we're two of a kind, in a sense. We both push hard for what we want. Sometimes I cross lines with people here. Check the top of my talk page if you need proof...I keep that there to remind me that I need to control myself. I may be out of line, but I'm just pointing out how easy it is to forget one's self and get carried away in "winning". I have experience in this, and believe me, it that may not be the best thing to do.

I'd give you a wikihug or whatever at this point, but I'm a hard-hearted bastard. But try to take some satisfaction in knowing that if I did give out hugs, you would get one around now.  ;)

Cheers, mate. Mael-Num 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar, and thank you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your steadfastness, faith, great negotiating skills, and all your hard work in keeping the new policy alive and smoothing the transition from the past to the future. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thank you very much, but you know you were a vital part of the team, so it's my pleasure to return the compliment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Yes, my identical copy of bucket-and-mop =]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Your help writing this would be very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On my watch list. Hope to find some time on the weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spammer detected at The Secret film article

Hi Jossi. It looks like we might have the same video spammer at work again, this time as, User contributions — Watchrapid. Three out of the five edits that user has made at The Secret (2006 film) have been to add or maintain links to spamming videos. This user, Watchrapid, may be same person as:

• wikiLeni, related comments at: user talk:wikiLeni — [this user is not me]
• 76.169.138.26, related comments at: User talk:76.169.138.26

WikiLen 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am xyr on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/jossi. Thanks. --≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You added me to proposed remedies in the FR ArbCom case

I am not a party to that dispute. I have only commented on the parties involved. I would apprecaite being removed. Thanks! --Tbeatty 02:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks jossi. --Tbeatty 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women

Hi I noticed you put back the version of Nightshadow. However, this version which is also promoted by Tropicaljet is a negationist point of view reducing the extent of nationalities of the comfort women and minimizing the implication of the japanese army. I ask you for the intervention of a wikipedia team to stop the actions of negationists on this article.

--Flying tiger 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved in editing that article. I only did that to counteract the violation of WP:3RR of one user, instead of blocking him/her as he/she was not informed of that policy. Please discuss in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but while this user stopped editing, another user, Tropicaljet, has infringed the 3RR rule many times. --Flying tiger 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V edit

I think you misinterpreted my WP:V edit. Imagine what a person looking for verifiability by entering WP:V sees. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

True to form, User:Dannyg3332 blanked your 3RR notice a few minutes after it was issued, marking the edit as minor.[17] Just in case you're interested. Raymond Arritt 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. This particular vandal has a strange MO — he changes insignificant details, like the fonts in other users' signatures. I blocked him at another IP ages ago, for vandalistic edits to Microsoft-related pages, and he's been needling at me ever since. I guess your history with him is probably similar. Anyway, thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Any time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:your message to me

You should have read the talk page at Islamophobia first before jumping to conclusions. My edits were not a "vandalism". It's O.K. I forgive you for your error :) ProtectWomen 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed your "warning" said "2nd Warning" ... ummm... where was the FIRST warning? For the record, my edits were justified, your "warning" was not...ProtectWomen 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx for thx

And kudos to you as well for all the work on WP:ATT. Blessedly, we appear to have a more or less stable page. Marskell 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Smee 3RR

Hi. Sorry but I have to point out your error in letting Smee, a relentless edit-warrior, off on his 3RR. The reverts do not have to be the same material. Please see WP:3RR

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

He already had a 3hr block, a ton of warnings, skated a number of times. He deserves to know that 3RR means something. Please revisit the 3RR item and make the correct call. Thanks --Justanother 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he has stopped and removed that article from his watchlist. Keep a copy of the diff of your the notice at AMI/3RR and provide it next time it happens, if it does. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs to show he has been here before, warned before, promised before. [18] [19] All due respect but he needs the block. He promises and then goes right back to it. If you are not interested in doing it then please let me know so that I can pursue other options. I am usually the recipient of his disruptive editing. Thanks --Justanother 03:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can contest my decision, if you wish, but note that 3RR blocks are not a way to penalize an editor, but th means to stop an editor from editwarring. Given that the user has declared that is disengaging from editing that article, I do not see the need to block. I would suggest that you focus on editing, and if this happens again, I will surely block. Drop me a line if that happens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jossi, I will let you knows if and when he starts up again on the edit-warring. Thanks. Up to you but I would appreciate if you would amend your comment on AN/3RR so it reflects that I made a correct 4RR call but you decided to withhold the block. Thanks --Justanother 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not do that, as I do not think that it was a 3RR violation. Note that it takes two to tango... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. How could it not be a 3RR vio? --Justanother 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you can contest my assessment at ANI/3RR and have another admin look into it. I have known Smee for a while, and I have seem him engage in edit wars, but I have also seen him disengage from articles and keep his word. A different admin may decide differently, so contest it if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I took you at good faith and backed away from it. All I asked is that you correct your misstatement that there was no 3RR. Say what you like as to why you did not block but leaving it as there was no 3RR reflects badly on me as having brought a false 3RR charge and I will not let that stand. Surely you can see that. --Justanother 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, Justanother. Move on, or ask for another admin to look into it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured it would save everyone trouble (including other admins that now must go through it again) if you would just correct your misstatement but if you do not care to then you do not care to. Do you care to? --Justanother 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've just sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Potter's House

Thanks for locking it for a while, I think we need to work out a few things. It was getting tiring checking it ever couple of hours or so. Potters house 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you. Darrenss 05:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments regarding my qualifications as a Checkuser

Nothing in that RfC pertains in any way to my qualifications to serve as a Checkuser. If you have a credible reason why you believe that I am not qualified to serve in that role, other than the demonstrated fact that there are a lot of people in the community who dislike me, please present it. I note that being popular is not a qualification for being a checkuser. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unpacking "likely to be challenged"

Any comments on this appreciated. Marskell 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR fiasco

• Sorry to trouble you again, but I have taken the WP:ANI/3RR page off of my watchlist, to avoid further baiting, egging on, whatever you want to call it. Can you please let me know on my talk page when this is resolved/completed over there? Thanks for your time. Smee 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

RFC

• User:Anynobody has started an RFC, which upon suggestion from User:Bishonen I have moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen also recommended: Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (User_talk:Bishonen)
  • Jossi, if you feel you can reach out/help out, as per Bishonen's suggestion, it would be most appreciated, and probably appreciated by User:Anynobody as well, though he has not commented recently at the RFC, Bishonen is right, it can be a "bureaucratic nightmare"... Smee 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

If JA wants my assistance I would lend a hand. I'll see what I can do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Smee 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Bill Aitken

Hi Jossi, regarding this move of yours, doesn't it contradict WP:NC to name articles according to the subjects real/proper names rather than the name they are best known by? Ekantik ^talk 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but William McKay Aitken is better than Bill Aitken (traveller), which redirects to the former, so it is not big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But if you prefer Bill Aitken (traveller), I can undo the move. Whatever is best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your offer

Thank you for your kind offer. I think that there is definitely inappropriate behavior on Anynobody's part regarding his PA-ish overanalysis of "motives" (I am not the only one complaining of that), his inappropiate WP:CANVASSING of my "victim" (who was blocked for attacking me), his agreement and continuation of uncivil bashing of me by said "victim" in response to his canvassing (see the MrDarcy link for some diffs). Smee is doing his job of "helping" and fanning the flames though I think he has, for the moment, backed off doing that as he has smelled the air and doesn't like what he smells. And Smee is nothing if not sensitive to the the way the adminstrators' opinions are blowing. Anyway, if you would like to take a look at User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia and provide any input that you feel is appropriate, I would appreciate. Thanks. --Justanother 09:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More inappropriate actions by Smee

Please see this for further inappropriate activity by Smee and User talk:Bishonen for more of the same and worse drama with very inappropriate claims. This is what happens when an abuser is enabled by never getting the little block he deserves. It just goes on and on. --Justanother 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see comments from User:Friday, with apt suggestion to User:Justanother to avoid commenting on my talk page, which he has disrespected three times in a row now... Smee 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, I must admit. I did talk to him to attempt to reason with him and settle any dispute that he might perceive that we have. He was not responsive though and simply deleted my comments while making disparaging remarks in his edits summaries. Just more of the same as per my previous. --Justanother 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I have the stamina to get involved in this personal dispute. I would advise both of you to seek the help of an experienced mediator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And I would advise said user to respect the advice given by User:Friday and cease commenting on my talk page. Keeping comments to content, not contributors in any way, shape or form, would be constructive as well. Smee 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Sure. That goes without saying. Justanother: please disengage for a while. It really helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well Jossi, go have a big glass of carrot juice and a nice walk first (smile). I really have no personal dispute with Smee. My dispute with him is over his abusive editing. I just want some admin or admins to let him know that removing someone's POV tag is rude and inappropriate, especially when I opened the requisite talk section to discuss it. And then edit-warring over that just compounds the possible (AGF) error into something worse and worthy of comment. This is not personal. --Justanother 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a personal dispute to me. In any case, I have made my suggestions. You can accept them or reject them as you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WT:COI

I've replied to your posting at Links to defunct policies in the body of the text. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion.

Thanks for the prompt reversion of my blanked talk page. LittleOldMe 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Jossi. Is it appropriate for an editor to ask another editor to provide personal information? See [20]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC). Oops, forgot to sign. TimidGuy 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia's privacy policy. If a user wants to volunteer information about themselves, that is OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. TimidGuy 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks for your message on my talk page. I wanted to ask you one question if you have a moment. On the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography page there is a quote from a Kent's book saying: According to the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent, John Lennon and George Harrison became disillusioned with him after "they discovered that their spiritual (and supposedly vegetarian) guide was serving chicken to select women and often making sexual advances toward them."[3]

I added the following statement below it: In The Beatles Anthology, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr united to lay past rumours to rest, and said: "Maharishi only ever did good to us." [4]

But I still feel that the quote from Kent's book falls in the category of defamatory statements and would like to delete it for this reason. Even though the others have tried to convince me Kent's statement is within the guidelines, I personally do not see how it can be, as it is quite defamatory. From reading the guidelines I understand that it is fine and even encouraged to delete such statements. Thank you for any thoughts you have on this, as I am feeling almost hundred percent certain the right thing to do is delete it. The others say it is well sourced, though Kent never spoke with the Beatles and it is part of the rumours that the Beatles dispelled in their Anthology. Vijayante

In articles, we rely on what published material reports on a subject, providing that the source is deemed reliable. As long as we attribute that statement to the source, and not assert that as a fact, we are within the guidelines. I would suggest that you look into Kent's material, as many times people cite authors out of context, or selectively to push a POV. I would also suggest to research more sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Advait Mat

Hi Jossi, I'm interested to know where you read the Advait Mat book? It seems difficult to get hold of.PatW 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I read it and took some notes when I was in India last year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A new anon appears

Someone is revert warring with anons again. [21] is currently blocked as you know, and as soon as he was blocked [22] stepped in. Arrow740 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome him, warn him, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it. It's clear that he's the banned User:BhaiSaab based on the similarity of these IPs to the last ones he used, the articles edited, the style, the fact that the IPs are immune to an IP locator, etc. Arrow740 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He is edit-warring again: [23] Arrow740 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prem Rawat

The article Prem Rawat you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Prem Rawat for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. If you have any questions about my review, feel free to contact me. Vassyana 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot of your review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in this matter. Smee 15:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

No problem at all. I look forward to seeing the article improve. It has a lot of great potential. Vassyana 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy seal

It's nice. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it. If there is other graphics work to be done, drop me a line. It is fun. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Keep doing a great job

And you! :) Now I've got images that they're all orcs running at us. I better put on my robe and wizard hat! But, thank you. This has to be a perfect example of me feeling sheepish and saying dumb things to compensate. See you around the wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

=O I didn't know orcs could do vector graphics. Or perhaps this is a "last second" image made by some poor Wikipedian, right before they got in an argument over who got to eat the nearby pie. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested input and advice

Jossi, could you do me a favour as an admin and look at this case? I would appreciate any advice or feedback you could offer me. Thank you in advance! Vassyana 11:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Woohookitt, already did what I would have done. If there is anything else I can assist you with, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will, thank you. Right now, that you and Woohookitty confirmed that I did the right thing in raising it and interpreting the situation brings me a considerable peace of mind. Thanks. Vassyana 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Any time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Since the article has a source for the notions in the movie being pseudoscience why remove the cat? JoshuaZ 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it hardly makes it into that category. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? JoshuaZ 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wide consensus of sources describing it as such? If there aren't, we should not categorize it as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I wanted to thank you for giving me a review. I am taking the advice of the reviews received so far and intend to spend a little time each day to RC patrol. I also intend to become a bit more active in policy discussions, per your suggestion. Thank you also for your generous compliments, though I believe you may praise me more than I deserve. Thank you again for your review. Vassyana 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think I praised... You have more than a 1,000 edits and so far you have been doing quite well. Get involved in community matters, so that you can interact with more editors. The Village Pump is a good place to interact with others, in particular the the policy subpage at WP:VPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to an IRC client, you can do some good in joining the "Vandalism Control Network" http://countervandalism.org . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will take both suggestions to heart. Vassyana 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seal

Hey Jossi, I'm looking at the small version of the seal on the right hand side of the screen and it doesn't look so much like a seal as it does a gold blob. I'm not sure if you're inclined to do any more work on it at this point but I think it'd be good to have a small size version of the seal. Also the ribbons that you had on the original gold seal looked good, you might try making a ribbon version too. See you. (→Netscott) 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Before I put some more work on this, I will ask for comments at the Village Pump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. This will be cool to see get adopted. (→Netscott) 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted at the VP here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be funny would be to put a check in the middle. LOL! (→Netscott) 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

:D !!! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might laugh at that idea. I'm looking at the templates and there is a striking difference in size between the check and the seal... I'm not sure if it matters but David might further argue that it takes up too much space. (→Netscott) 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... I did just did that. Check mark and seal... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, this will tend to support the idea of changing the policy tags. (→Netscott) 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Suggestions

Hi, thank you for your suggestions. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the no-newbie-biting one – Qxz 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Super cool... What do you use to create the animated GIFs? Flash? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! Sadly, Wikipedia doesn't allow embedded Flash animations (...actually, now I've said that, forget the "Sadly", it's probably a good thing!) No, I'm using Adobe ImageReady – Qxz 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC one – Qxz 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Analytical Psychology" article

Hello, Jossi.

Just curious about the reason that links to Jungian discussion forums are not allowed in External Links for the article, "Analytical Psychology." Mine, for instance, Kaleidoscope Forum. Have you checked out the site for yourself, by any chance? It's professionally done, well moderated, and is the only forum currently on the web that offers discourse for both pros and beginners alike. Please reconsider.

http://kaleidoscope-forum.org/talk/index.php?sid=a17bf926549688279ac843e117322bd2

Thanks!

Celestia10958 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Celestia10958

Celestia, please check out our guideline for external links (WP:EL). Normally, links to discussion forums are discouraged. Please engage other editors in talk page to discuss if this specific link is useful for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ToK

Andries (talk · contribs) has been given a 3RR warning by me since he made three reverts already. If he continues, I will report him on the 3RR board. He's already been sanctioned by ArbCom for this kind of behaviour, completely banned from editing an article. I'm not going to tolerate this kind of disruptive behaviour and if he pushes it, I will also request an RFC for him. He should be aware by now this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable, if he wasn't before the sanctions. Just an FYI. Vassyana 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that his concerns can be addressed, if he engages constructively. Pity that he choses to disrupt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Secret (2006 film)

That whole section (re: critics closing remarks) is extremely biased, completely irrelevant and should be removed entirely. The entire section is there to undermine the criticisms from critics. It's not something you would see in a proper encylopedia. I'll respect your warning, but you should take a closer look at the extreme bias in the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConorHession (talk • contribs)

Maybe. But we do not delete large portions of material without discussing the reasons for such deletion, as that is considered vandalism. Please discuss with other editors at that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ConorHession, I as the editor who put in the section, "critics closing remarks", would relish your participation in a discussion already started — see, Title for "Critical Praise sub-section. Finding NPOV for this film is like balancing an egg on its point — just doesn't want to be there. Without the "critics closing remarks", it is too negative for a NPOV—in my estimation—and with it—by your estimation—too positive. Can you help me get this egg on its end? That is, find a way to have both negative and positive views about the film—as expressed by experts—live in this article without invoking POV wars. —WikiLen 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody

Hi Jossi. If you are still willing to help me with Anynobody then I think that this reply by me clearly states my problem and my desired outcome. I have been trying to get him to change his tack on his talk page too. He has been ill and Scientologists believe that illness comes only from stress and I can see that his fixation with me is likely one source of stress. Thanks --Justanother 14:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. What can I say. I try but others try harder, User talk:Anynobody#FYI, odd commentary... --Justanother 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Objectivist movement

On the talk page of the Objectivist movement you mentioned how much help the article needs. I've re-written the article and am currently working on getting it up to standards. You can see what I have so far here. If you have the time any suggestions or criticism would be appreciated. Endlessmike 888 01:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are still interested, just go to the Objectivist movement page. Endlessmike 888 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

The warning you gave me about posting nonsense on Wikipedia is nonsense itself. The event did happen, and made the local news. There is even video proof of the event in question. You asked me to cite sources, if you read closely I DID. If that source was not acceptable for you then why do you work on Wikipedia, when the educated, and the educators don't accept Wikipedia as an acceptable site? --Mark D. 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in the Abraham Lincoln talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did, BEFORE you deleted my entry into the article.--Mark D. 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss there and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning?

I posted the following comment earlier, and it got deleted.

You also just left me a warning about eternal links, but you did not specify what you are talking about. Unlike the previous Wikipedian, I wouldn't call this unfair, but all the same I don't know why you did this. Are you just trying to be helpful, or are you responding to some specific external links I've added that you feel are inappropriate? Happy St. Patrick's Day. Anomalocaris 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what was your warning about? Anomalocaris 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL. Adding links to sites that promote a product or service is not appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You only corrected a link, not add it, I will remove the warning. Please accept my apology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

How exactly is a FAQ page a proposal? Seems to me you're just answering common questions. >Radiant< 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It can be a guideline or a policy. Same as WP:NPOVFAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Taoic religion

Thank you for your GA review. I will address the issues you brought up immediately. Vassyana 15:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification requested on the talk page. Thanks. Vassyana 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. I have the article on my watch-list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anything else I need to touch up in the article? I'm quite happy to put in whatever improvements are necessary. Vassyana 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you resolved the dispute about the use of the term "Taoic"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Founders of religions

I was somewhat surprised that I could not look in one place and find the great thinkers (or great con men, take your pick based on personal belief); anyway, the great thinkers that started religions or spiritual belief systems. So I started one and added a few names. Please contribute if you care to, I think it can be a neat category. Thanks. Category:Founders of religions --Justanother 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that these people did not found religions. Religions started after they died. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of them are founders, like Hubbard, Baker Eddy, Smith, many many more. A few religions are based on the teachings of the founder. In fact, I almost categorically respectfully disagree with your statement. These teachers, by and large, attracted a core group of disciples and if the teacher did not see the formation of a structured "church" in their lifetime, they certainly laid the groundwork for it. I do agree though with challenging some of the entries added like Adam and the Roman guy I see is missing, as I mentioned on my talk page. --Justanother 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, why would you remove Pythagoras? I clarified the cat statement a bit. Basically I am looking here for great spiritual teachers that inspired others to follow them and so could be considered the "Father" of a religion or spiritual practice. I think it is extremely valuable to gather those people up in a cat and cannot imagine why the closest thing we have now is the (somewhat derogatory?) "Category:Self-proclaimed messiahs". If you want to help me adjust the name or the "mission statement" that would be great. --Justanother 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo

Thank you for your contributions. However, I still have some problems with the article as it stands. If you read the blog entry carefully you will see nowhere in it does Nimmo endorse Irving. He was merely criticising the fact that Irving was going to jail for his views.

I also feel that this entry is irrelevant in regards to the article itself. I would feel better if the sentence in the main article was deleted and that a little passage was placed next to the link in the reference section that says something to the effect of "Nimmo say's the gas chambers are discredited". As Nimmo himself has stated several times on the talk page, he meant discredited in the sense of "Cause to be doubted" and not "Didn't Happen".

I realize that I'm making some pretty forceful demands here and you have every right to tell me to fuck off. I am asking you for a favor. You have access to the article and I don't.

There are people like Isarig who are trying to bias this article by defaming Nimmo. I am begging you to help out. From what I can tell you you seem like a fair and reasonable person. Please don't let people like Isarig bias this articleannoynmous 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the article yourself? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't because of the block. I guess I'm still a relatively new user because the block has shut me out.annoynmous 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again if you read the blog, Nimmo did not endorse Irving. He simply objected to his freedom of speech being violated.annoynmous 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you by the way. You've become my only hope to unbiasing this article. I still think the article needs work though along the lines I mentioned above. Neverthless, Thank you very much for helping me.annoynmous 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that some or all of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS should be merged into WP:ATT

• Yes
• No

---

Run-off questions can then unpack this further. For instance, we might merge V and RS, but leave NOR as Jimbo is concerned about it. Marskell 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of an open ended question, Marksell. I see your point, but it may be confusing. If the poll goes ahead and ATT in its current state is not accepted, there is no reason why not to propose later on to merge V and RS into ATT and keep NOR separately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well, an open-ended question allows for multiple responses and I don't see how this one does—you either do or do not agree with merging. "Some or all" allows people to vote "yes," knowing that they don't have to agree to dropping all three, but maybe just two, with that decision deferred.

I'd like as a first step to gain a majority number and not a plurality. We can guarantee that with only two options. Polls on Wiki typically achieve nothing because there's too many percentages to consider when they finish. Marskell 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a try, Marksell. I am a bit confused on how this would work, if at all. I am disengaging for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not particularly encouraging :). Only having one question isn't the be all and end all, ultimately. Maybe I'll try two. Marskell 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post to you that, despite editing over eachother, we'd hammered out a couple of good and straightforward questions. David Levy then made this change. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it highlights for me how difficult it is to deal with a) basic issue b) outcomes of basic issue, at the same. Question 1 is so simple we could take it live right now. Would you agree to just ask the first question, and then, say ten days later, move to question 2 if there is an obvious yes consensus for first? Marskell 16:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Why do you believe that I was Experimenting on the Christianity page? As a Member of the Christian Anti-Messianic Church, I realize that all I have is Faith. I do not Experiment, for that is the way of Science which is unGodly. I was simply pointing out the Sacred Word of the Christian Anti-Messianic Church, which is an Exception to the Beliefs of many of today's self-styled Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esa29 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Esa29: Wikipedia is not a place in which we express our opinions. Please become familiar with how this project works, and what are its core content policies. See WP:ATT, and WP:NPOV for more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Prem Rawat seems to be coming along very nicely. Checking it out, the great improvement in stability was immediately obvious. Editors are working much more in harmony and building towards the same direction. The criticisms section is greatly improved in presentation and writing. 21st Century section is more concise. The lede is vastly improved. All very good signs.

The other time period sections still need to be trimmed down and written more precisely. "Recognition - media appearances" should really be named one or the other. That section and the one that follows a little "listy". Giving some context to the various names and items would be good. After that, I'd recommend a full once-through reading of the article for copyediting and trying for the most neutral presentation Though the article is greatly improved in that regard, it never hurts to check t again after rewrites. However, the article is vastly improved overall. Good work! Vassyana 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You will have to congratulate other editors, as I only did some minor edits, fixing refs, etc. :) Care to make a comment at article's talk page? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you already copied it over for me. Thanks! :) I should have done that myself. Regardless, I'm glad to see the progress and can't wait for the article to come back to GAC. Vassyana 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Editors were happy to hear that it is progressing well, but still feel that there is a lot of work to be done before resubmitting. In addition, some editors have come back after your comment and started reverting some of the work done .... So, indeed, there is still work to be done... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Charisma topics

If you don't mind me asking: what makes you an authority on the subject of charisma and charismatic leaders that you feel the need to go and revert valid, well intentioned, and relevant edits? Are things not allowed to change around here, or must articles/categories ALWAYS reach a certain level and then wallow in stagnation? --WassermannNYC 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization of people, as well as WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Categories should be used judiciously and only in these cases about which there is wide consensus of sources. Otherwise, an editor can place George W. Bush in the Category:Mass murderers on the basis of a source such as an Islamist publication. See the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. Please remember that the 3RR applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles. The duration of the block is 8 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} to request a review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at the report on WP:AN3...remember that reverts can be partial, they need not be a complete revert to an exact copy of a previous version. At a first look, you've done seven or eight reverts (one is questionable) so far, even after being asked not to do so. I understand you're working at a poll, but surely you're aware it's not allowed to undo others' edits repeatedly, especially after being requested not to do so? It looks like there is a productive discussion on talk, if you'd be willing to stop reverting the article I would be happy to take off the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am using a load balancer, and you may need to remove autoblocks from two IP addresses, not just one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me check. I only saw one, but let me make sure it didn't sneak in another. You should be unblocked now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will attempt to not DFTTs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your note on my talk page

Thank you very much for your note. I'm sorry that there seems to be a bit of a mess -- maybe you could help me tidy it up? One thing that would be quite helpful would be if you would put a note on the talk page of the other user I know of who moved similar material from the community talk page here. I was only moving material that I had accidentally posted in the wrong section (plus replies to it), which really should be in the same section as the message I was replying to, which got moved. I.e. I was following that other editor's lead in moving stuff. Maybe it really ought to be put back on the community discussion page. I wonder whether there's any other material that's been moved off the community talk page. If you move stuff back I'll appreciate it. How can we get consensus about whether to move it back? I really appreciate your help in this, and I'm sorry that I made two mistakes which led to the discussion being fragmented on two pages; first, I replied to a poll without making it clear that people shouldn't reply right there to my reply but should follow the link I provided (I guess I didn't expect replies!); and then I somehow accidentally posted something in the wrong section, I don't know how -- some sort of edit conflict or pressing the wrong button or something. --Coppertwig 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, Coppertwig. You want some friendly advise? Stop. Take a break, come back in a couple of days. The discussion about ATT is likely to continue for ten days or more. You have made your points, let now others make theirs without being disrupted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have the impression that the majority of people who have replied to me do not understand the one point I keep trying to raise. There is no one who seems to understand it and who indicates disagreement and is willing to discuss it with me.

The discussion should certainly continue longer than 10 days. There aren't even merge tags on WP:V yet.

Thanks for your friendly advice. What I would really appreciate more than advice is real discussion of the point I raise about false information being welcomed into Wikipedia. Also, demonstrations of impartiality and equal treatment of users. I can certainly understand if you might want to take a short break before discussing anything with me -- that's up to you. --Coppertwig 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose...

(I know Wikipedia doesn't do votes; I use the word for simplicity).

We ask the original "Do you agree in principal..." question and we get 75-25 yes out of 100 responses. Good. Now suppose these hundred turn to question 2:

• 10 want the "condensed summary" with V, NOR, and RS to remain live, and thus vote no to all
• 5 support V only (i.e., a rename of V to ATT—a not implausible position)
• 20 say yes to V and NOR but not RS
• 20 say yes to V and RS but not NOR
• 20 say yes to all three
• The 25 who voted no on 1 vote no to all

Final result: V 65% yes; NOR 40%; RS 40%. If we haven't asked Q1, ATT is likely dead.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it's not unthinkable. Marskell 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If that happens, then you calculate as follows:

75% support for some kind of merger: ATT stays, that is same as asking for a Yes / No to the principle of the merge.

65%, which is often insufficient consensus on some Wiki processes.

20 that say Yes to all three + 20 that say yes to V and NOR + 20 say yes to V and RS but not NOR. That is cumulative 60% for a minimum common denominator of ATT staying as a merger of V and RS. So you end up with a 75% support for a merger, and 60% support for merging V and RS. In all these cases, the minority killing ATT remains at 25%. If I was to close that poll, I wold interpret it as: "there is support for a merger and we shall merge RS and V". Then I would look at Q3 and see what the consensus is for what to do with merged pages.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have gone down this road... 65 not 75% for some kind of merger (which is insufficient consensus on some Wiki processes), and 40 not 60% for V and RS, specifically. But whatever, you can up with any hypothetical numbers you like. The point is, any result will be arguable and partial. What will happen IMO if we get results of this sort is that people will throw up their hands and say "what a fu**ing mess" and we will have accomplished nothing. Put another way, even if I agree with how you are interpreting aggregates someone else is going to disagree. That's the problem with plurality outcomes. Given that you've spoken well about not wasting five months of work, do you want to risk that? Marskell 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Any ideas? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what I'd actually like to do? Take ATT to WP:MfD. A straight up and down Q: should this page exist. That settled, we can come back to the poll and work out various options 'til we're blue in the face. Doing this with policy pages is actively frowned on at MfD, so it probably can't happen; if six odd people all co-nommed it and explained the reasoning, it might work. In lieu of that, I think we need to start with a question as close to "should this exist" and nothing else at the poll. Marskell 19:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Respondents who believe that WP:ATT should exist will vote for one of the three corresponding options of question 2. Respondents who believe that it should not exist will vote to deactivate it. The poll already includes the exact question that you wish to ask, but the answer isn't as simple as "yes" or "no." —David Levy 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT

I keep seeing you working hard on the WP:ATT, keep up the good work. That is like a full time job. Thanks Jeepday 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a good helping hand from you would be appreciated.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I peak in, I make a comment, but the game is to big and to fast for me to play. I don't have the history or the time to keep up to speed. But If I can be of any specific help just holler. Jeepday

Keep an eye on the poll that would open in a few days, then you can express your opinion succinctly with your vote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Leading question

I left a shorter version of this on the poll talk page:

The question is, and has been since I came to this poll, which pages is there agreement to subsume into WP:ATT? It is true, and the intro to this poll says, that WP:ATT was designed to subsume two pages and much of a third; but when asking what pages there is agreement to subsume, the pages should be treated equally. That is a clean and fair question - and, tactically, I think there is a very good chance that the community will agree that both WP:V and WP:NPOV should be subsumed, if there is no effort to hustle them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right to disengage; good night. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one needs to know the limits on how much one can try to convince others before looking like a troll. I see your point, but still believe that people coming to participate in the poll, should know that this is not about a new idea of merging some policies, but about an existing policy that has already merged two policies. Not saying that may be misleading, just maybe? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the intro said that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article National Union of General Workers

A request for comments has been filed about the use of anonymous sources in reliable publications. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Sparkzilla 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you could help me understand something. The request for comment above was discussed on the talk page, and it was noted that there was no actual evidence that the writer of the source artcle op-ed was writing under a false name. That meant that the RFC was invalidated to some extent. Nonetheless, the discussion started with SMcCandlish agreeing that the disputed sentence was fine, and then changing his mind to say that the op-ed piece was the equivalent of "noise" and comparing the op-ed to "trivia". The op-ed is here: [24]

If the writer was notable, or the response itself was notable (e.g. for generating sourceable controversy, forming the basis for a movie about it, whatever), good to go. Otherwise it's just a random "who cares?" factoid, like the fact that it rained today in Albuquerque for a little while. — SMcCandlish

This confuses me because 1)I thought that op-eds could be used to show claims, but not facts (as you said when I asked for coment on WT:ATT/FAQ#anonymous sources and 2) I think the claims that the union is overly militant and that its actions will affect ordianry teacher's paypackets are neither trivial, nor random, nor a factoid, and merit inclusion because they are valid criticisms of the union's actions. I suppose there's also 3) why would the source be acceptable when the person was anonymous, but not when the user is identified? I hope you can help. I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This was answered by SMcCandlish here: [25]

Involved admin protecting and editing page

As one of the persons most involved in and responsible for the merger of WP:ATT, you are one of the most involved parties to the dispute. Do not protect or unprotect pages you are involved in a dispute over. Do not edit protected pages you are involved in. See also WP:PROT: "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute" and "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute". See also m:Foundation issues, specifically that "The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content". If it so essentially important that Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources be protected, make a request at WP:RFPP with reference to the specific justification under WP:PROT. If you wish an edit to be made to these pages, discuss it on the talk page and post a {{editprotected}} request. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have unprotected it and restored the protection. K ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that WP:3RR is clearly being violated here, and it's NOT worth it. This is an ArbCom case in the making, and jossi, please don't be one of the casualties. Xiner (talk, email) 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have unprotected it and reverted the addition of the header. Keep an eye on these pages because the s*** will hit the proverbial fan. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen Image

Authorization for the use of this image has been rescinded by the copyright holder. Please respectfully refrain from returning it to the feature.Dannyg3332 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What photo are you taking about? And why are you telling me this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction

Hello,

I notice you disagree with my posting on the Law of Attraction which sources the specific origins of the law. My contribution is not "original research" nor is it an "interpretation" of current scriptures of Kashmiri Saivism. Rather, it is a mere summary of the specific scriptural doctrine (SPANDA - the doctrine of Resonance and Vibration). Please clarify as to what specific aspects that you are having issues with.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tapanbhargave (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Tapanbhargave is my username (Law of Attraction posting)

I have explained that in talk. You are asserting that Kashmiri Saivism is related to this purported "law of attraction". But to do that, you cannot just add your opinion that that is the case; You need to provide a source that makes the assertion that these are related. Please read WP:ATT#No original research for more information on this very important content policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

I appreciate the clarification. By the way, a minor thing I've been meaning to mention to you: I liked the way you wrote "<<<(outdent)" and I've been emulating that. I think it's cool. I hope you don't mind -- it's all under a GFDL license after all.  :-) --Coppertwig 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to your latest message. I'd give a diff link but the database is being slow. --Coppertwig 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, look before I leap, and let each user represent his/her own opinion. Quite a variety of opinions out there.

However, I'm under the impression that I was asked at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Statements from all sides needed to facilitate the development of such a document. (I'm still thinking this situation over.)

Seraphimblade's page protection action had a calming effect on me. I'm trying harder to see others' perspectives and build understanding. --Coppertwig 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Asked by whom, Coppertwig? a couple of people? In any case, I have done as much as I could to assist you with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you not see it?

The yes vote split and thus a no plurality? LOL. It's odd, because for three days I've had to fend off variations of "saving at my prefered" and we've just saved at a version which favours in this order: a) no to ATT b) ATT as a "supplement" (because this is an equal weight yes option).

Just another badly designed scale. Marskell 20:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What would work, Marskell? I am at a loss on how to find common ground with others. Any ideas on how to bridge that gap in understanding? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss too. I almost feel the poll should be spiked. We can throw the Community discussion back to Jimbo. Whatever happens, I don't have a clue why we're giving equal weight to "Yes...and used as a supplement." That's awful, Jossi--awful, awful, on the question that was supposed to be simple. David doesn't seem to understand the difference between an attack on an idea and an attack on a person, so I can't explain it to him. And there's so many trolls besides, that... Well, I don't know. Marskell 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, Armedblowfish has now come up with two types of "no," so I guess we have balance. It's a fucking joke. Marskell 21:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross

Sir,

The website rickross.com is a hate-based website.

The website contains a forum and is against basically everything.

They have created an entry for Klemmer & Associates without permission.

The entry for K & A should NOT point to RICK ROSS

the RR website only contains hate-based information that is against every organized religion and group in existence.

Im not sure why you blocked my account and would like to know, if you would be kind enough to tell me.

You may post here or on my page.. i am still trying to figure out how all this works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)

Hi John, I understand that you may consider that site such, but in Wikipedia we only report what reliable published sources have to say about a subject. We do not describe our own opinions of the subjects covered. I will place some pointers in your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Happy editing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi,

RickRoss is not a reliable source and should not be allowed to update another companies busines page with links to their own propaganda website.

I can refer you to pages on the RR website which substantiate what I said about users being banned who cannot be provoked.. that is not opinion, it is a fact. - john —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)

(please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. It will automatically add your name and a timestamp). I understand how you feel, but I would suggest you take some time to follow some of the links I place on your page so that you become familiar with this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Is there any way to prevent the RR group from defacing the Klemmer & Associates entry ? While it's a free world and they're entitled to their biased and twisted and one-sided narrow-minded views, they should not be able to use wiki to create/deface entries for legitimate companies and twist it to their own use. Lsi john 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, May I inquire as to why you removed all the detail I added and reverted to The RR links to his LGAT blathering? I'm very confused. I see that you added a discussion comment that RR is not a reliable source of information, but you re-instated their LGAT links which indirectly link right back to the RR website. Additionally, K&A has not been 'linked' to multi level marketing, except by the RR website. The K&A entry was written by the RR group and they are monitoring and 'house keeping' it back to their text. At least the data I put on the page was factual, per your requirements. Lsi john 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you added a 'request for updates' , I have 'updated' the text. Is this update satisfactory? the entire LGAT concept is a RR attempt to label things as cults and dangerous. The fact that some MLM groups attend the seminars does not 'link' K&A to MLM any more than K&A is 'linked' to corporate america because it hosts seminars for major corporations like HP. http://www.klemmer.com/corporate/ Please note that the LGAT page has: "An editor has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced."

Lsi john 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi,

Sorry to disturb you again, however it seems the problem is larger than just Klemmer & Associates.

You can also find Smee's attempts to discredit another traning seminar group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_World where he tries to link PSI seminars to something they are not related to. Tying Thomas Wilhite to Mind Dynamics and then tying Mind Dynamics to Life spring and then making un-cited charges against Life Spring (all in an attempt to discredit Psy) should not be allowed.

Here, again, the entire Large Group Awareness Training reference is suspect due to its being unbalanced.

I recommend that someone scan all of Smee's edits for more of his attempts to deface entries for organizations which he opposes.

Also, User:Antaeus Feldspar brags about being anti-cult on his page:

"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case..."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

Based on his 'housekeeping' that reverted my changes back to the 'cult' language, his edits are also suspect (in my opinion).

Lsi john 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

... that I am very upset about your email to Jimbo. (a) Puts down the work of a dozen editors that have worked at that page for seven days; (b) Says that we cannot reach consensus, when we have not completed the work; (c) Polarizes the issue even more; (d) Demonstrates a lack of respect for your fellow editors that worked alongside you; (e) removes yourself from the shared responsibility over that work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

None of that was my intention. I respect everyone's opinions (no matter how strongly I disagree with them), and I merely wanted to share my concerns (all of which I'd already expressed publicly) with Jimbo. I honestly believe that we cannot reach consensus when everyone (including me) believes that Jimbo has requested something different.

In case you haven't yet read my reply, I'm in the process of typing the follow-up e-mail that you suggested. —David Levy 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am a strong believer of "shared responsibility", you and I and a dozen other editors worked on that page, editwarred at times and were stronheaded about our opinions. Add to it that we had some trolling as well, and that makes for a messy debate. So, we are all responsible for the mess and the lack of consensus, no one is exempted, and as such we should clean it up. I am sure we can, if we just listen more to others and be less inflexible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail #2:

Hi, it's me again. It's been brought to my attention that I probably shouldn't have combined my personal opinions regarding the situation with a request for intervention. I strongly disagree with some of my fellow editors, but I didn't intend to imply that they're acting in bad faith. On the contrary, everyone has been working very hard to do what he/she feels is best for the project. Unfortunately, we all seem believe that you said something different (that supports our arguments), so we need you to clarify your position. Thanks again!

I sincerely hope that this addresses your concerns. —David Levy 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course, I just noticed a typo (the missing "to" between "seem" and "believe"). I hate the fact that e-mail can't be edited after it's sent!  :-) —David Levy 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No bad feelings, David. I am sure that over a beer, we could have knocked that poll in 15 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the most compelling argument for drinking that I've seen in quite some time!  :-) —David Levy 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility

Let me see: I discussed at length. I voted in the Poll poll. I suggested compromise wording, and submitted when it was deprecated. I put up links to the texts being considered, and waited until the Poll poll was over. The polling process was abandoned by Denny, after he personally attacked me for abandoning it (when what I had in fact done was to add the question which was leading, and still is, in that poll).

So it must be my fault; how could I have been so blind?

In all seriousness: what I have done seems to me to have been largely resistance to bullies, who have reverted at whim, in order to secure a wording which stifled David Levy's clearly expressed views, in one case (not you) without bothering to read them. I came to this poll expecting to support WP:ATT and attempting to do so; I said so repeatedly. If I cannot do so now, it is you and SlimVirgin who have made that impossible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There was and there is no need to personalize or polarize this issue. It is not such a big deal, after all. I will be really content to go back to pre ATT. Those that made this into a big deal are those that need to bear the brunt of the responsibility for the disruption it has caused. Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

smee LGAT

Jossi,

Based on the edits you ended up with on the k&A page, I followed suit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Dynamics and removed the LGAT references. They are opinion and are not appropriate. Smee has seen fit, here again, to revert the changes back to suit his designs. I don't enjoy having to come to you on every edit, but using wikipedia to label companies and ogranizations with biased and unsubstantiated references and links is inappropriate and I don't know where else to turn to stop it. Lsi john 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

{Please discuss in article's talk page. That article is a stub without sources. Any material in that article that is not supported by sources can be deleted. In the case of characterization of that organization as this or that, you can only do so if there is wide consensus of sources for such categorization. Otherwise it may be added by attributing the categorization to a reliable published sources that categorizes it as this or that. See WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The dilema is that some editors seem to be well established and tend to write/publish a lot of their own jargan and propaganda. Such as the LGAT and Large Group Awareness Training pages on wiki. Then they generate pages for their 'targets' and reference back to all of the 'documentation' that they created.

On a side note, its interesting how cult-like and single-minded the RR website actually is.

They're established and I'm on an uphill learning curve. Whatever help/suggestion you can offer is appreciated. Lsi john 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in the article's talk page and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• On a side note, the only place where I have seen individuals allege that the term "LGAT" is pejorative is on Wikipedia. In many other areas, the term has been used academically to refer to these groups on multiple occasions, with no objections from the groups themselves. In fact, Werner Erhard and Associates commissioned a study on their own group, whose title was Evaluation of a Large Group Awareness Training - which was often cited by the group themselves! Smee 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I do not care for one or another. If it is a widely used distinction, and this company has been referred as belonging to that category, there should be plenty of sources about it, so it should not be a problem. As it stands now, as a stub, I do not think it is appropriate to add that distinction. Knowing you Smee, I am sure you can come up with some sources and attribute their opinion about that company. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, I'll find the sources. And you are correct, by the way. It is a widely used distinction, and there are plenty of sources about it. Thanks for the advice. Hope you are doing well. Yours, Smee 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that Smee visit the rickross.com website and forum, in order to see countless uses of LGAT pejorative fashion. It is the jargon phrase that is most widely used under the 'lgat' threads. Lsi john 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that message board is not a reputable secondary source. Instead, why don't you try looking up the usage of the term in scholarly books and academic journal articles, as opposed to just on Web sites? Smee 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done that.--Anthony.bradbury 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Hi, Have you read completely that talk page? And by the way do you know any kind of bot that interferes on behalf of one of the users [26]? (and giving misleading edit summery). and it is not the first time I see misleading edit summaries there. (I have also complained to other user about one of them [27], I am sure you can find another samples of it there) and What I have included was not OR at all, it is just in opposite of POV of another user(s). The above article has "POV" tag for about 4 months, and it is due to the fact there are users that doesn't let the other side POV included in there. I am really disappointed from the way they acted towards me. take care,--Pejman47 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? That is the way we resolve disputes in Wikipedia. Not by editwarring. Place request for comments, ask for third opinions, request informal mediation, etc. Just don't editwar, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your question about NOR, you are certainly mistaken. We do not balance articles based the personal opinions of pro and con factions amongst editors. A balanced article is one that presents what reliable published sources have said about a subject. We do not go around finding tidbits of information here and there and synthesize these to make a point that has not been published. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your helpful comments, I will certainly try request for comments. And please revert the edits of that bot, you are welcome to redo his edit your self, but I don't think a bot can do those kinds of edits. Again thanks, --Pejman47 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATTPOLL: 21:59, 1 April 2007 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (please... stop. What is this for?)

Beats me. Someone seemed to want that template there, but mangled it in such as way that it mangled the entire page, so fixed the code. No objection to reverting the entire thing; I thought it was a bit pointless myself, on the poll page (I think it is good on the poll talk page.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone... No need to edit that page if you have already stated your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A recent vandal

You just blocked Mulelover23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which I am all for. However, I actually had reported them as a username violation. I cannot re-list it because the helperbot keeps pulling it off saying you've already blocked him. Please consider an indef block since it is obviously a vandalism only with a name vio. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Law of attraction edit

Jossi, I'm surprised at this edit. That paragraph is full of weasel words: the opening sentence starts "Some critics say that..."; the next sentence starts "Skeptics have claimed that..." the final sentence contains "...skeptics argue that...". None of these statements are supported by the one source in the section and all are classic weasel words. Your edit summary of "?" wasn't tremendously illuminating either. Gwernol 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That article is a mess. I have been trying to keep it clean, to no avail. Let's stub it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That works for me, I agree the whole thing is a mess. Gwernol 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please block

Please block user:Aoclery. He is vandalising the Sathya Sai Baba artcile (and related ones). (Please reply on my talk page). Krystian 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So will you block him? Why didn't you reply (he is continually editwarring, POV-pushing and vandalising this article)? Krystian 09:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a drive-by

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on WP:ATT. And yes, I disagree with you, but I have to express my unequivocal admiration for the work you have done on this, and the way it's made us think about what we really mean by our policies. Nobody can be in any doubt that this was a work of barn raising in the classic Wiki sense. I salute you. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"More than 200 Amish carpenters raised [a] new barn near Mount Hope in Holmes County, Ohio on September 1. 2001. Assembled from precut wood that was delivered the day before the barn raising, the huge livestock barn was ready for evening milking the same day it was erected. The barn was built entirely with hand tools. An Amish friend opined that if the "English" (non-Amish) had to rebuild the barn, it would take at least a month to figure out who should be on the planning committee that would decide how to build it."

Thanks... the kind words are much appreciated... hope that the effort will be worthwhile. I believe so: we have raised some interesting issues related to policy, changing policy process, Jimbo's role and more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage archiving

Just doing the rounds of talkpages previously archived by EssjayBot III. Just to let you know that Misza13 has created MiszaBot III to perform the same function. You can request this Bot's services at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. Werdnabot is presently blocked since March 6 following a malfunction and Werdna does not appear to be around to deal with the matter. WjBscribe 01:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Hello Jossi, can I get your input on some external links at Shunning and Excommunication at Talk:Shunning#External_links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you. The Transhumanist    03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Morey

You may want to add your two cents to Talk:Robert_Morey#Continued_non-compliance. Cheers! --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Instead of moving the page, I felt it better to get further discussion so I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump. You may want to reaffirm your view in the informal poll Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move just for clarity. Cheers. Nil Einne 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Lisboa on Prince Henry the Navigator

I think you should bar Dr. Lisboa from the discussion page re Prince Henry the Navigator. His arguments are rude and vulgar and insulting to a professional historian who has challenged his facts. And his facts are mostly wrong, very wrong. He obviously knows little to nothing about Henry, relies upon a biography that is 150 years old to the exclusion of a recent universally praised bio, and insults those who criticize him for doing so. I have to say I would not be surprised to see Wikipedia bar the intelligent contributor who knows what he is talking about and retain the ignoramus who doesn't. More or less par for the Wikipedia course? Wikipedia in my view is not much interested in having authors who know their stuff, but prefers those who don't. Sad to say —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.29.176 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Prince Henry

I will try to follow your suggestions. However, let me point out that the first to insult with vulgar terms like "asshole" was Dr. Lisboa. And it is difficult not to attack a poster who is constantly wrong, refuses to acknowledge his errors, and simply persists in them or drops one error and creates new ones. In short, how gladly must one suffer fools?

---

professional historian who has corrected Dr. Lisboa's many errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.29.176 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Summary

Minderbinder has been reverting that WTA addition, for no given reason, for days. It is only polite to state your reason, not just that it is a "terrible idea," or that I was involved in the dispute (so what?). The sentence is gone from the original article, and it is a great example. Why shouldn't it be used? There are other examples used, which mention specific topics. His reverting without reason should be dealt with, not my edit summary which merely stated the obvious state of things, in what I hoped was a humerous way. Would you respond on my talk page? Thanks Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dao De Jing Edits, Welcome Message, etc

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to welcome me to wikipedia. I pointed out in the talk section for the dao de jing page, that I did attribute the section that you deleted to two published sources by three fairly reputable scholars on Daoism. How am I not backing my edits up with reference to published materials? Do you want me to add more citations?

Eugene Eoyang "Tao Te Ching: A New English Translation by Stephen Mitchell" The Journal of Religion, Vol. 70, No. 3, The Encyclopedia of Religion. (Jul., 1990), pp. 492-493;

Stephen Durrant "Packaging the 'Tao'" Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2. (1991), pp. 75-84.;

Jonathan R. Herman, "Tao Te Ching: A Book about the Way and the Power of the Way by Ursula K. Le Guin" Journal of the American Academy of Religion > Vol. 66, No. 3 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 686-689

Norman J. Girardot, Russell Kirkland, "Taoism, the Enduring Tradition" UK:Routladge, 2004, 218.

All these are scholarly sources commenting on English translations of the Dao De Jing that take liberties with the text according to romanticized Western notions of Chinese thought.

What am I missing? Alabasterj 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for block at The Secret

Hi, I intend to formerly request that User talk:Watchrapid be blocked for linking once again to video spam (patently obvious spam) after being warned for the "last time" not to do so — suspect you might want to look at this. I have reverted the links (to Larry King live videos at Google Video) and added a note at Watchrapid's talk page.—WikiLen 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Error on my part: No block needed. Watchrapid, when adding in links for the second time, made the links be to transcripts for the Larry King Live show, thus avoiding the spamming videos.

WP:ATT and Jimbo

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#What_process_should_be_used_to_change_policy_structure_or_policy_in_the_future.3F. I think this is the most important issue that has been raised by the WP:ATT affair, and merits far more discussion, hence why I'm notifying you on your talkpage. In point of fact, I think a full discussion page is needed on whether Jimbo's actions in this case were justifiable. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism again

Please bring your heavy hand down on User talk:160.81.221.42 for vandalizing again The Secret (2006 film) and Law of Attraction after your final warning. We have had attempts to link to this domain from multiple users. Any way to block all attempts to add links to this domain? thanks —WikiLen 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:24.207.24.230

Please block him. He is vandalising Sathya Sai Baba related articles. Krystian 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.207.24.230

Could You please block this vandal. He vandalises Sathya Sai Baba related articles. Please respond on my talk page. Krystian 11:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Trampton 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.

Trampton 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC question

• There is an ongoing WP:RFC at Talk:Erhard Seminars Training, relating to the inclusion and/or use of the navigational footer box {{LandmarkForum}}. However, no uninvolved editors coming from the RFC posting notice have commented. (Incidentally, since you were last involved, I believe I have implemented all of your suggestions with relation to the navigational footer box itself.) I would like to kick this discussion further up the chain - what avenue would you recommend next, in order to solicit neutral comments from those previously completely uninvolved in editing these articles and topics related to them? Smee 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Paragon partition manager article

Hi! Just wannna know why you've deleted subj. and prevented it recreation. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabar (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Re "freeze the design"

When you asked if we could "freeze the design" of the poll you were right. I didn't understand the question because I think some people had been using the word "freeze" to mean page protection. I didn't make it clear, when I asked what "freeze" meant, that that was one of my sources of confusion. When I said I thought we needed to keep changing the words, I didn't intend to encourage edit warring. I actually wanted to see more discussion on the talk page rather than just reverting -- not that I wasn't at fault too as far as that went. --Coppertwig 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I close my eyes yet?

;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You feedback

Your feedback and opinion would be greatly valued if you had the time to review a WikiProject proposal I am working on in my sandbox. Your perspective would be greatly welcomed. Vassyana 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Destructive edits continue

User:Aoclery keeps making the same defamatory edits despite what You told him and despite my warning. He is violationg both the ArbCom rulings, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, editwarring and ignoring warnings and advice. I think he should be blocked for it. Krystian 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

You said:

Coppertwig, I do not think that this line is worth pursuing. The concept of "verifiability not truth" is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this rather puzzling. I've already said numerous times that I'm satisfied with the longstanding policy wording "verifiability not truth" and have suggested editing WP:ATT to have that wording instead of the new contentious "attributable ... not whether it is true". When you say you don't think this line is worth pursuing -- from other things you've said I don't think you mean you agree with staying with the longstanding wording. I'm wondering whether you mean that you think the new wording should be kept, in spite of numerous objections, and without discussion? Could this explain the lack of discussion from proponents of the new wording -- is there a belief that the new wording should be kept without discussion? Could you explain this? --Coppertwig 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do something about it

User:Aoclery continues to add this content despite the numerous warnings he has received. Please block him. Krystian 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

English-language sources

Yes, I saw that it had been previously discussed, and it seemed that the majority opinion was in favour of this sort of wording, but some people reverted the changes without discussing them on the talk page. Please respond to arguments on the current talk page, as I feel that the state of WP:ATT when it was frozen did not reflect consensus on that point, judging by the archives. Joeldl 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I believe the change is reflective of consensus as expressed on the talk page, I will reinstate the change I made if you do not respond. Joeldl 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pentad

Hi Jossi, thanks for answering me about the Pentad stub. Now you haven't completely answered my questions. The stub says that the pentad was used as a sign of recognition amongst pythagoreans, and the image you created is in three colours (black, pink, blue) on white. It is quite a complex image, involving three circles and ten lines. Did they carve this sign on their doors, or what? Did they colour it in? Those specific colours?

I suspect they didn't, in fact, do any of this, and that the image is not an image of the Pentad; rather it is Hemenway's diagram of how the Pentad (which simply means "five-ness") can be expressed as part of a geometric series incorporating a vesica pisces. If I am correct, the pythagoreans would have used the number five as a sign of recognition, either dropped in conversation, or shown in some symbol like the pentagram or the pentagon.

The trouble is, none of this is clear from the article, or from the image's info page, so I can only guess. You haven't explained what the Pentad actually is. I'm fairly sure it wasn't just a secret sign, but what is it? Fuzzypeg☻ 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The colors were added so that readres can appreciate the different geometrical shapes used to construct it. We should do some more research to understand and describe the use of the Pentad. In the meantime, I will change the caption so as to not to mislead readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little more research on my own account, and it seems that all these articles have misleading images, and several of them, such as Monad (symbol) have misleading names. The Monad is 1. It is not a "symbol", it is the number one. There is no "image" of it, and although one may indeed draw a "representation" of it, there are many such representations. The numeral "1" is a representation of the number one, just as much as your image of the "Monad". Exactly how the pythagoreans represented it doesn't seem certain.

The Dyad, Triad, etc are simply the numbers two, three, etc. It seems that a pentagram was at times used by pythagoreans to symbolise the pentad, but that doesn't mean it (or any other drawn figure) was the pentad. The image you have on the Pentad page is indeed a representation of the pentad; more specifically it is Hemenway's representation of the pentad, drawn in a rather complex way to suggest a process of geometric unfolding from one number to the next. This seems to have a lot more to do with what Hemenway thinks than what the Pythagoreans thought.

Overall I find this group of articles extremely misleading; they contain almost no information about what the Monad, Dyad, etc actually are, and everything else they contain seems to be representative of the rather ideosynchratic ideas of a single author, even though they purport to represent what the ancient Greek pythagoreans thought. I would be in favour of deleting these articles or redirecting them to the articles 1 (number), 2 (number), 3 (number), etc, until some better information comes along. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you want, add more sources and different viewpoints about these geometrical/numerical concepts, and more information. Please discuss in these article's talk pages and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are abundant sources on the subject, such as Platonism in Recent Religious Though, by William D. Geoghegan; Columbia University Press; Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, by Dominic J. O'Meara; Clarendon Press; The Philosophy of Mathematics, by Edward A. Maziarz; Philosophical Library, and many others. So, rather than going for deletion or merge of these stubs, endeavor to add more material to mmake these articles worthy. 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing

Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny ^(talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion

This page (Mike Fernandez) should not be deleted because he is a very important person in the Edsa revolution of Philippines and should be properly addressed as a tribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rage007x (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I have deleted that page as per WP:SPEEDY (CSD A7). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. I personally think it was fine before, but at least this should (should!) quash the debate some. --Otheus 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

warning clarification?

I'm sorry, could you clarify your reasons for warning me just now? I wasn't aware that I had committed vandalism (in fact, I thought my last two actions, presumably what prompted the warning, were removal of vandalism). Bihzad 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An honest mistake. My apologies. I have removed the warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem --- thanks very much. Bihzad 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal should probably be blocked again

You temporarily blocked the anonymous vandal 64.229.152.178 once before. Actions since the block expired indicate a permanent block might be in order. The anon seems to have a fetish for vandalising Canadian hockey pages and has ignored many warnings. See Special:Contributions/64.229.152.178. 165.189.91.148 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden ratio a featured article candidate

I just discovered that on 4/15/2007 one Wikipedian nominated Golden ratio as a featured article candidate. So far, all other votes oppose FA status. In the article's current state, I would vote to oppose as well; the article is not anywhere near what it could be. On the other hand, I have not had time to do any significant work on it, nor will I in the near future. Finell (Talk) 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Finell. Hope you are doing well. I can see that the article needs still a lot of work... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews in apostasy

Please do not tamper with the Jews in apostasy article without serious discussion. Did you not see the top of the talk page that a vote was held and it was voted to KEEP this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in apostasy. You may want to elicit other views from editors who are well-informed about Judaism at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK 08:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamper? I have never edited that article. I only redirected it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Powers/HELP:Bay Area Holocaust Oral History Project

Admin Jossi, It would appear I created an article BAHOHP when I was trying to do a re-direct to #redirectBay Area Holocaust Oral History Project.:-( Can you assist me with this little mix up I have created.PEACETalkAbout 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I created the page and redirected it to Bay Area Holocaust Oral History Project. That is what you wanted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Jossi, Good news and bad news. It must be Jewish karma...now you created the above Bay Area Holocaust Oral History Project(I think because you left out the t in Project...which needs to be deleted. But otherwise the good news is the redirect is working great!:-)Thank & PEACETalkAbout 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the wonders of code, I do not know who John Smith (some e-mail came on live)is and I am not John Smith. So, I am editing this out. How very odd, a day this.PEACETalkAbout 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No... that was a mistype. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it is all working great now.PEACETalkAbout 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Your talk page seems broken at the top. A box seems to be formatting a page or article?

-

Jossi,

As I've been going through the series of LGAT articles, I am finding links (on both sides of the issue) that I believe are inappropriate.

I have read WP:EL and seem to understand it, though it also gives quite a bit of latitude.

Would you take some time to help me understand what qualifies for WP:EL .vs. Other Sources .vs. External Reading?

Specifically,

1. When are blogs allowed?
2. When is it appropriate to link to a forum related to the article?
3. When is it appropriate to link to a user-group related to the article?
4. When are independently written emails, letters or opinions appropriate links?
5. What should and shouldn't be linked to, on an otherwise WP:RS author's official page? (personal commentary) (quoted letters (to the editor) written by others).
6. When is a source like skeptics dictionary, or other opinion references, a valid link?
7. Rather than include numerous links to the same website, we are encouraged to link to some central point.

However, if that central link-point (list), includes non WP:RS material as well, at what point would it be inappropriate to link to it?

Thats a few, I'm sure I'll have more. Lsi john 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see this is very simple: The external links section is not a dumping ground for anything that could not make it into the article due to lack of compliance with content policies. That is, don't add a link to a site that could not be used in the article itself because of undue weight, lack of reliability of the source, etc. The guideline is clear on this:

Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

So, when assessing ELs you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is that link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source for the article", then don't link. If the answer is, "that is a great resource that complies with WP:V, and WP:RS", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because that EL is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a source that complies with WP:V", then link, by all means. Hope this is useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Often those are subjective questions. And in areas of high controversy, subjectivity varies.

Specifically, then, as an example of a current discussion:

http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html

I don't believe that link, which has links to numerous other articles, adds significantly to the article. I also feel it violates several of the should be avoided guidelines for WP:EL.

There are several WP:BOX commentaries by Rick Ross for his cultnews.com website which I feel aren't WP:RS

There are several letters to the editor which I also feel arent WP:RS.

The answer I have received is that they are reliable secondary source and relevant to the article.

I feel quite strongly the other way.

If you agree that the link should not be used, how can I explain that to my counterpart?

If you don't agree, please explain why, so I can understand the standard being used do decide.

Thanks. - Peace in God Lsi john 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

I and the whole project owe you thanks for a lot more than this. But I figure I'd better catch up on the things I'm behind on, before taking care of the bigger issues. ;) Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. Keep doing a great job. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contentious/BLP

If you leave that word in there, then the same thing is going to happen when some poor shmuck reads what that policy says, and reads it the exact same way we do. If it's superseded by Jimbo Wales saying "If it's unsourced, and it's a living person, it must come out..." fine. Let the policy say that. However, right now, you have the policy saying "Only if it's contentious" and another group saying "Even if it's uncontentious" SirFozzie 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "particularly if it is contentious", and not "only if contentious". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

People take one sentence out of a policy and wield it like a machete. Well, that would not be the first time that happens. BLP is quite good when read and taken in its entirety. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do read it differently in several places.

From Lines 6-9 of the policy Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

From the section entitled: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Anyway, you probably think I'm wikilawyering, and I'm not (or at least not trying to), I'm just frustrated because I'm reading something into the policy that others apparently are not. Have a good evening. SirFozzie 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No... I think you may have a point. If the policy is misused because the wording is not clear, let's fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was attempting to do with removing the word contentious in the policy. If it read, for example, "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person in an article — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable, should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." That's pretty clear on its face, would you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Would you be terribly upset if I was WP:BOLD and removed the word contentious again from BLP, or re-word sections to make it clear that ALL unsourced information needs to go, not just contentious material? SirFozzie 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not be upset... You can try it and see if its sticks. I doubt it that other editors would agree, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let's see what happens. SirFozzie 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Greetings, Jossi!

I ran across your welcome post to Shnng, and was wondering; is there a template for that box? When I welcome someone with a Useful Info box, I have to copypaste the underlying code from my own page, which seems appallingly inefficient. If I could trouble you for that template, it would make my life easier, and make me more inclined to welcome people properly.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the template you your userspace. To add the template to a page use this syntax: {{subst:User:Septegram/Welcome}} - ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I've been looking for something like this for a while. Is there a list of these? I've looked around the WP:WELCOME, but to no avail. Ideally, I'd like one that was similar to the one you used, but without the invitation to ask me questions; I'm not an Administrator, and often just want to do a quick "Howdy" rather than present myself as a serious resource, particularly for shared IPs.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just edit the template... User:Septegram/Welcome to whatever you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha!

That's how it works. I get it.

Thank you kindly.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User 76.174.134.16

Hi Jossi, I noticed that you banned User: 76.174.134.16 recently. It seems he/she is up to the same thing again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.174.134.16. Buck Mulligan 04:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FoF mediation

Hey there.

I was wondering why you removed the Big Fat Note(tm) from the Fellowship of Friends article to move it to the talk page? I understand it's a bit ugly there, but given that work is currently done on a draft of the disputed page, we wanted to avoid risking loosing edits done to the main article by passing editors that didn't know where editing currently took place.

As far as I can tell, there are no guidelines saying this is a no-no (please tell me if there is, I'd like to know) and this was felt to be a good way to warn others. Coren 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These notices are designed to be placed on talk pages, and not on articles. The fact that editors are engaged in dispute resolution is not a concern to our readers. Use the {{POV}} or {{disputed}} tags for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

External Link Edit

Cheers, Jossi. I seek to understand your perspective. On the Hamilton_College_(Iowa) page you removed a link, saying: (studentsreview.com. Not to be linked to as per WP:EL) (actual link was Reviews of Hamilton College). I read EL....but I'm not seeing why this site would be automatically excluded. I found it useful, and wish I had found it before enrolling. Slainte! averagejoe 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi JR. See Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Ratemyteachers.com. Also, It is obviously not a source that is reliable for the purpose of an encyclopedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

User:Chris gately should probably be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, though it's just my opinion. Thank you for your hard wiki-work. —ScouterSig 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... If does it again, he will be indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guru and Koenraad Elst

Thanks for your enquiry about my removal of an Elst quote from the Guru page. The Indologist in question, while popular in certain circles, has no academic position, has published no peer-reviewed work, and his PhD is on Hindu nationalist discourse, on which he has published no peer-reviewed work or anything with an academic press. Nevertheless, I think he is an eminently quotable person on issues relating with the internal dynamics of Hindu nationalism; I merely think that quoting him on mainstream pages, like that for Guru, for example, is not encyclopaedic, and ruled out by WP:Fringe. He is out of the mainstream of academic thought on several respects, should not be quoted extensively outside his speciality, and quoted with care even there. Hornplease 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Hornplease. I would argue that as if he is notable enough to have a full article in WP, he may be notable enough to be cited in articles, in particular when we are attributing the text to him, and not asserting the text as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. That's where WP:FRINGE comes in. Many individuals and theories are notable enough for their own articles, but are not authoritative enough to be quoted as encyclopaedic in articles which are about issues unrelated to their specific non-mainstream field of thought. Do you have any reason to suppose otherwise in this particular case? Hornplease 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)'

I see your point, but I do not see how the text that you deleted falls in the category of WP:FRINGE. He makes a critique of Storr's book, and that is not a fringe theory, but a viewpoint that, given Elst's background, would be of interest to readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting; but if Storr's book is sufficiently notable, then there will have been criticism of it that is encyclopaedic. The problem is not that the critique in itself is fringe - I do not know that, in the absence of any information about other critiques. The problem is that by using this particular critic, the critique loses encyclopaedic value as the critic himself is not encyclopaedic. While Storr's book may very well need to be balanced with other interpretations, those interpretations should be at least from within the framework of review and oversight that we require, and that produced Storr's book.

We simply can't put anything in, even if its interesting; the simple problem is, that given it's Elst saying it, and Elst is not a mainstream academic or commentator on the subject, can we say 'yes, this is a central criticism of Storr', or will that be misleading our readers? Hornplease 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see this differently. Storr does not even have an article in Wikipedia, does he? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does... Anthony_Storr. But one could argue that he is less notable/authoritative on the subject than Elst... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, remove them both. But I must say I doubt that Elst will get an obit in the Times. Hornplease 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to remove both, but I am certain that it will be reverted... Also, I do not think that an obit on the Times is the threshold for notability. If that was the case 90% of the content in WP will need to be wiped out... : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Good job at Fundamental Rights in India, btw. )≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject spam

Thought you might find this article to be of interest [28]. I hope you keep the conversation going at the project. The language is due for an overhaul. Nposs 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some suggestions, that you may consider. I am far too busy with other wiki projects to want to join Wikiproject spam, but I 'll keep an eye of that page to see if I can be of help in rewording it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy

Hi Jossi. Just a brief note to say that someone has updated the Calligraphy page with respect to Indian calligraphy, but has introduced a prallel referencuing system which is laborious to bring into line with the structure in place. Any chance that you could contact the person concerned and ask them to do it please? ≈ Furminger ≈ 28 April 2007

Just place a note at talk:Calligraphy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

40,000

Congratulations. Sign of a misspent youth. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ACIM Thanks! and help

Hi Jossi

Thanks for all of your help in sorting out the small conflict on A Course in Miracles. You did one edit unrelated to the conflict that I do not understand and I am hoping that you can help me understand the policy better.

In the "Key concepts" section there is a list of what someone believes are the key concepts of ACIM. I had noticed that there were no sources for this section so I placed an "unreferencedsect" tag. You then removed the tag. I do not understand why. There is not a list of "key concepts" in the book. Without sources the section appears to me to defy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

I am not looking for any kind of conflict here. I am interested in learning why you think the above policies to not apply to this section.

Thanks so much.—Who123 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My assumption, Who123.... I though there was such a section in the book. I would remove that section altogether as it has been unreferenced for quite a long time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the Unicode error right away ... you just barely beat me to reverting it.  :) I'll have to watch out for that in the future ... it was a browser extension to pop up an external editor that caused the problem, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjpremore (talk • contribs)

Yep. That happens...≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne merge

Your attention is appreciated here: [29] - Throw 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Opinion

After reading a few of the other reviews on an article that was nominated for deletion, it occurs to me that some of these lists of xxxxx would seem to be a product of WP:OR.

If we (as editors) go out and research WP:RS material, and compile a list, and publish it as an article ... isn't that the definition of Original Research?

Maybe I'm being too technical, but it would seem to me, that a Category might qualify to hold a list, but not an article.

An article talks about a subject, and cites WP:RS sources and what they have said about the subject. To publish an article about shoes, we can basically only talk about shoes in the article and the specific subject of shoes must exist and must have been written about.

Its abstract, but in order to publish an article about List of organizations referred to as Cleaning companies, wouldn't the subject list of organizations referred to as Cleaning companies need to exist and people have written about it? We don't appear to be citing WP:RS sources that have written about a list of organizations, we are citing individual WP:RS material as verification for our WP:OR as we compile a list.

Your thoughts?

Lsi john 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with lists in Wikipedia, in particular with lists about subjects that are controversial. You can read an essay I worked on with others: Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, some of which have been incorporated into WP:LIST. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. The more I think about this, the more I really believe that LISTS on wiki are WP:OR, whether they are controversial or not. A list is a compiled set of data, which is a research product. Categories would seem to be bit more legitimate, but not articles called 'lists'. A list seems to be a back door to original research. Even harmless/uncontroversial lists should be removed. Rules are rules. Exceptions lead to chaos. Lsi john 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Status quo is getting harder and harder to change as the project grows. I would argue that there is no chance to get lists removed from WP. Some lists are excellent navigational aids, although you can achieve the same via categories. You may also want to talk with some of the editor5s at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists and see what the say to that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tkx. :-} Lsi john 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

-

What is the general response for seemingly frivolous allegations brought to the incidents notice board? And what is an appropriate response from outside individuals. Specifically, was my response [here] appropriate? Lsi john 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can comment on Noticeboards, this is a wiki. As for your question if what you wrote is appropriate or not, that would be something that you should assess for yourself. Note that admins that attend to noticeboards and quite experienced and can assess very quickly is the incident reported warrants their intervention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I was not asking for an assessment of my content, but rather feedback on whether or not it was appropriate to post there.

In the same way that we decide whether or not information belongs in an article, by evaluating whether or not it adds significant value to the article, I was asking for your opinion on whether or not third party opinions on that board added significant value to the board.

Not being totally familiar with the entire process, I am not sure who works which boards and what rank or status is required to handle or help with things on those boards.

From your citation that the admins are quite experienced, I would conclude that third party posting does not provide significant value and is thus unnecessary and distracting.

Thanks again. Lsi john 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, admins are experienced to assess these notices. On the other hand, any editor has the right to comment on these notices, and in may cases it is a welcome addition, as it gives the admin more information. In this case, you should preempt your statement by saying that you are not an admin, and state your comment as neutrally as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is the feedback I was looking for. It is my goal to conduct myself wiki-proper. To do that, I look to more experienced editors/admins to advise me, not on content, but on context. Peace in God. Lsi john 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Feel free to flick a booger at me if I become a pest... You guessed it, I have another question.. If cited material, specifically avoids mentioning the name of the company, can that source be used in the article as reference material? Specifically, the only reference to a company in the material is at the top of the page:

"Note: The use of the term "Vitality Initial Training" refers to the Basic Training of a well-known LGAT."

If the author of the material specifically avoids identifying the company, are we permitted to use his work and make that connection ourselves? Lsi john 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not think so. That would be a violation of WP:NOR. Editors should not get involved in speculation, but rather, in describing what reliable sources say about a subject. No more, no less. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on that reply, would you be so kind as to make sure I'm not missing something here:

#21. http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/v-intro.htm

That article is referenced in the Lifespring article and it appears to specifically divorce itself from identifying specfically with Lifespring.

If you concur with my assessment that this reference falls into your above description of WP:NOR, then what is the procedure for removing it? Can I assume I should simply delete the reference and remove any material in the article which cited it? Lsi john 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The excerpt of that source does not mention Lifespring, and as such the source does not match the text. Forget about NOR, that source does not speak of the subject of the article. I would place a dispute tag, and ask editors to provide a quote of the book (including page number) in which Lifespring is mentioned in that context. I would use {{Citecheck}} that says: This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text. If no quotation is provided in 7 days or so, you can delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, much obliged. Gota love propaganda. Lsi john 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Solo se que no se nada. Policia pata podria, no tiene un chele pa la comida. Is understanding the issue, or choosing not to understand the issue? I'd hope that my last comment/post spelled it out for anyone who was trying to understand and not play word games. Lsi john 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reports prepared for the Congressional Research Service are not government reports

I'm sorry to question your logic, but could you explain how they aren't? Anynobody 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the are not. Reports prepared by the FBI are. Reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service, are "think tank" reports prepared under the request of a Congressman, for the purpose of getting informed. These are reports for Government and not "Government reports". A subtle but very significant distinction: A "Government Report" carries the imprimatur of the Government. A report prepared for Congress by an individual researcher at the CSR carries no such imprimatur. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) lets assume you are correct, where do "Government Reports" come from? Is there a dedicated office of Government Reports (who puts the imprimatur on the reports), and if so what branch of the government does it work for?

I don't mean to come off like a smart ass, so please answer my questions. Your logic in saying that an agencies of the Legislative or Executive branchs of government aren't part of the government is highly illogical. (If the FBI receives a report, and keeps it as a source of information it becomes a government report because it's being used by a part of the government). Anynobody 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing a Government document with a Government Report. One is a piece of paper with writing on it. Another is an official declaration perpared BY the Government and released with an express purpose of a Report. Lsi john 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I mean report when I say report, but that is actually not the meat of the discussion. "Is a document/report from CRS, the FBI, etc. considered a "government" document or report?" is the nature of the discussion. Anynobody 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain: Let's say that Commission X at Congress is working on legislature on carbon emissions. They ask the CSR to do a study on the impact of moving to 20% ethanol in all gas stations in the US. The CSR assigns researcher Joe Blow to research the subject, and Joe produces a report named "The impact of ethanol on carbon emissions". The report will be signed by "Joe Blow", a researcher employed by the Library of Congress. That is not a government report. Now, if Commission X at Congress uses that information and creates an official report based on that and other research, then 'that report will be considered a "Government report". Get it now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The report in question does not carry the signature (and therefore no imprimatur) of the government of the United States. It carries the signature of a researcher, in this case an employee of the Library of Congress. Would you call a record at LCC (Library of Congress Catalog) a "government report". Surely not. It is published by the LC, doesn't it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A government employee, at a government agency, prepares a report about ethanol's impact on carbon emessions, for a government body that is not a government report? What kind of report would it be then? It certainly isn't a private report. Anynobody 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it a government record. Anynobody 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither. That is a report on a study made for the government. Thousands of these are prepared by one agency or another. Some of these are private, some classified, some of them are on the public domain. We cannot call these "Government Reports" as if these have the imprimatur of the Government of the US. They do not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you are not persuaded by my logic, perhaps you'll listen to Ben Franklin at gpoaccess.gov guide to U.S. government for kids - Note the flow chart designating the LOC an agency of Congress. If you still don't think publications (seems more accurate and will avoid confusing document/report by including both, plus it's what the government calls them) by a government agency are not government publications then what would you call all of these publications/reports/resources/etc: gpoaccess.gov Congressional reports gpoaccess.gov Legislative Branch Resources for more general information about the whole US government check out usa.gov]. Anynobody 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of semantics, Anynobody. When you read in a WP article "In a US government report, this and that was said about X", what will a reader think? That the report is a report produced by the the Government of the United States of America that carries the support and imprimatur of that government, right?. And that would be 100% misleading if that "report" was written by a researcher based on a request from a Congressman/Congresswoman, as that report only represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the Congressman, or the government. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, where in the government is this decided according to your understanding:...have the imprimatur of the Government of the US. They do not.? Anynobody 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any official report of the Government will be placed on the public domain, will have the seal of the specific branch of government that issued the report, and will be signed by government officials. You can an find most of these in the Federal Register. For example, when you speak of "Congressional Reports" above, note that these are government reports, produced by specific committees appointed by Congress. On the other hand, a study by a researcher employed by the LOC is not a government report. Massive difference, Anynobody. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but according to the Federal Register: Not all documents created by U.S. federal agencies are published in the Federal Register. The government has the power to classify documents so that they are not published.A classified government publication/document/report is still "government". Anynobody 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure. But as you rightly pointed out, we also have other means by which government makes public its reports.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that goes toward my point as well: if it was produced by or for a government agency it is government property. Anynobody 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading my responses? I am not arguing if it is the property of the Government or not. What I am saying is that you cannot call a report written by a researcher employed by the LOC a "Government report", because simply it is not. That report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government. On the other hand the report "S. Rpt. 109-322 – Hurricane Katrina" by he Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Congresswoman Susan M. Collins, Maine, signed by Ted Stevens, Alaska; Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut; Norm Coleman, Minnesota and tens more, 'is a goverment report. See the difference? It is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder shouldn't be needed

You are correct about this, Jossi. My apologies for even being involved in an interaction which would have you write that. I was tired, not at my best, and annoyed at what occurred to me as a flip attack with no value and so I reacted in like kind. Thanks for the reminder- even if it shouldn't have been needed. Alex Jackl 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your undocumented claim that Thetford was a "writer" of ACIM until documentation can be provided.

Dear Jossi,
        I'm not sure what you were referencing when you claimed that Thetford was documented as having "written" ACIM. I have reverted this claim until it can be documented. To the best of my knowledge, the word "scribe" was never used by any sources that I am aware of to imply "writing" or "authorship" of ACIM. To the best of my knowledge, Schucman was the only one that any of the three original editors (Schucman, Thetford & Waphnick) ever allowed to be listed as an author (or writer) of the work. Could you document otherwise?

          Thanks,

          -Scott P. 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not add such wording, did I? The wording I used was: According to Helen Schucman. That is OK as I was attributing that claim to her and not asserting that as a fact. I have no intention to editwar, so I leave it up to you to reconsider your reversion. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere

Thankyou for your interest in the Richard Gere issue presently unfolding, and for your contributions. I understand you have begun a new RfC process at the Gere talk page as an attempt to pursue the matter further. I can completely see that your motives for doing so are constructive. However, I would like to point out that there has been extensive discussion, not only at the Gere talk page (much of it archived, prematurely in my opinion) and the BLP noticeboard, but at the Jimbo Wales talk page also. This discussion has moved from forum to forum, always initiated by Sparkzilla whenever he was unhappy with the way things were going at any particular venue for discussion. It has taken an enormous amount of effort to continue arguing the case and responding to the arguments of others. There has been ample opportunity for interested editors to get involved. I also note that Sparkzilla has already begun interfering with your RfC, arguing about what it is about, editing it to suit him, etc. What I am saying is this: at present I believe it has been clearly established that there is no consensus to include this material. My fear is that by initiating yet another discussion, the result will be that opposing editors simply run out of energy to continue putting their case. Dragging out the issue interminably can be a way of wearing down opponents. Again, I can see this is not your motivation, but I truly wonder about whether this issue really requires more comment. What it actually requires is for editors to admit that there is no consensus to include this material. At least seven editors have already argued that the material ought not be included. Thanks again. FNMF 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, to be honest, I don't believe the RfC should have been opened before the close of the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Opening the RfC in the middle of the BLP noticeboard discussion allows editors to escape the conclusions of the noticeboard discussion. In fact, I consider this decision catastrophic, as I don't think I can be bothered fighting these clear policy violations any longer. Editors should not have been allowed to escape facing the clear conclusion of the BLP noticeboard discussion, which is that there is no consensus to include this material. Again, I understand this was not your intention, but I fear it will be the result. FNMF 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw some disruptive activity by Sparkzilla and warned him. You can simply close the RFC by providing diffs to other RFC-type discussions such as the BLP noticeboard and others. If Sparkzilla persists in disruption by opening further RFCs, he can be stopped by blocking for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Thanks for the suggestion. My feeling is that Sparkzilla et al are certain to strongly object to my closing the RfC, on the grounds I am too involved. I think it would work better if you did it yourself, being the opener. FNMF 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted some comments at Talk:Richard Gere. I will keep an eye on this for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on usage of other user's comments

Jossi, in Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, Smee recently copied another user's comments into a new discussion section and included their signature and timestamp.

Whether unintentionally or intentionally, the appearance was that the other user had commented on the discussion.

Then, based on those two opinions, Smee went on to edit the article and cited those comments as justification for the edit.

I reverted the comments and the edit, as I believed them both to be rather improper.

Was my action correct?

Lsi john 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You will need to ask involved editors, John, but it is quite OK to cite other editors in discussions. I would simply place their comments in to a {{quotation}} block, to denote that it is my citing and not their commenting. You may propose that to Smee. We are all learning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Yes. If the comments had been referenced in "quotes" and identified as being placed by Smee in support of his position, then I would not have had an objection. I have done this myself. I blockquote, italicize, " quote it and provide their signature.

In this case, the other user's text was transplanted into the discussion, in first person, including signature, followed by Smee's comments. And then Smee edited the article, and claimed support from the discussion.

I felt this was improper and thus I reverted the edits to the discussion and the article. I posted on [Smee's page] and said very similar to what you said above.

My question to you was not content, it was context. Was my action appropriate based on what I saw?

I'm not looking for an opinion on Smee's behavior, I'm asking for an opinion on mine.

Lsi john 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of this WP:BRD? That is a great way to engage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lsi john 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

72.166.78.66 is vandalising again

Hi. I'm currently undoing vandalism by User:72.166.78.66. It seems you blocked this IP last month. Maybe it's time to do that again. Gronky 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

done --BozMo talk 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

Hey there.

I've commented a bit on the talk page over there, and since I don't know how closely you are looking at the work in progress, I thought it good to drop you a note here.

Please understand that I can plainly see you are a more experienced editor than I, but I think you might not have gotten a good feeling of how things were shaping up, and I'm a bit worried that your intervention might be perceived by the disputing editors as requiring a defensive posture, and shatter the tenuous truce that had begun to give productive results.

Bold is good, but so is being a little more relaxed about the guidelines if it leads to editors sitting down together to make a good article from what was originally a POV war field.

Cluck. Cluck. Cluck. Forgive me if I take that particular article under my protection.  :-) Coren 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:) No problems. I did not want to jump into the draft page, but hopefully the edits I made to the article and the tags I placed would be useful. If you need any help with the mediation, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi jossi, since you know more then anyone about these sources and other things, could you please comment on this (advertising and articles), as I think it's serious (Coren seems to be on a break). Thanks a lot. Aeuio 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult list

Heya. I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination) is ready to be junked. It was a horribly presented AfD; perhaps this is because it was an improperly formed and then resubmitted by a keep !voter, perhaps not. Either way, the responses for both keep and delete are completely inconsistent. There are several different reasons people !voted delete, several keep !votes that do not seem to address criticisms at all, and plenty of considerable arguments as well. After I explore the subject a bit in the talk page I'd like to resubmit the AfD, providing it with a proper focus for discussion so we can finally find a consensus one way or the other on this forever-questioned article. I'm kinda concerned that it'd be in bad taste to put up a new AfD too soon. How long is appropriate to wait? Ichibani 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That article has been 5 times up for AfD, and this is the sixth time. Dontt see any future AfDs possible in the near future. The only way to address this would be to declare the article non-compliant and to participate in a discussion in talk. But my feeling is that you will be overwhelmed by these editors that have made that "list" their leitmotif. Hopefully the closing admin will see the problem and delete the article or give strong advice to fix what is obviously broken with that list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Henosis

Hey THANKS! LoveMonkey 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look(also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS America merge

Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shalom, Nadav. Is it not that the AfD was closed with a delete? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shadowbot3

The bot was removing sections without archiving, see Shadow1's comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. I rolled back all the bot's edits. Grandmasterka 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say hello, and that the NOR Talk Page is getting extremely frustrating. I have brought it to the attention of two other admin, but they have not yet stepped in. User_talk:Rockpocket#Ack.2C_Sorry is one such spot. If you go there, you will notice my suspicions about User:Lode_Runner. He claims to be new (he cited "dont bite the newbie" rule) and not sure about things, but also used quite a lot of Wiki references and cited rules more than what any new person would. If you look at his contributions, it seems strange that he would have experience with running into enough arguments over Original Research that he would come to the rule page to change it.

Be it coincidental or not, an argument was started over at Warhammer (40,000) Talk Page which had Pak21 citing the new rule almost as soon as it was created to try and "win" an argument. Localzuk also came from over there to argue against the NOR rule in order to "win" the argument to. It feels incredibly suspicious. btw, you can reply on my page or here. I don't mind either way. You can also edit anything of this post out if you so choose.SanchiTachi 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, SanchiTachi. When confronted with editors like these, my learning is that it is better to space out your responses so that it does not become a duel. Believe me when I say that the core policies of WP are being monitored closely by many experienced editors and you should not be feel alone in that endeavor. Give some space an time to other such editors to comment. If you feel frustrated, it is better to let go for a day. You will be surprised how well can Wikipedia manage without one of us. Read the wrote by W. Wilson at the top of this page. Disruptive editors hang themselves given enough rope: it is just a matter of being patient... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a personal interest (not personal opinion mind you) in wanting to argue there in order to keep it from back spilling into the Warhammer page, as people tend to take moments of quiet as a vindication and then spread it onto countless other pages. Its all icky all the way around. I kinda wish that the main page of such rules pages be protected and only admin allowed to correct/change/clarify/clean up language based on Pump, RfC, Talk, etc. People tend to believe that if its editable, that you can basically assume whatever you want about the title/page without actually reading anything beyond the title of the said page. SanchiTachi 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia, my friend. Take the good, and do not allow the bad to affect you much. Look at it this way: Where would you have had the chance to interact with such a diverse group of people. I am learning so much about human nature, as I am exposed to so many different type of people with such a divergence of viewpoints. That's the good. The bad, is that it can frustrate the heck out of you. Don't let it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Items of interest

Fyi: 3O Items of interest. [Unless the editor in question is inactive, it is considered good form to let the editor who placed a tag on an article remove it] [here] [here] and [here] Lsi john 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Oil spill

Thank you for clearing up vandalism done to Oil spill, and for blocking the vandal. However, the reverts you did only reverted to a revision which still contained vandalism carried down from other illegitimate edits. I have reverted to a pretty earlier revision of it. please see [30]. Thank you. Oh, and please reply on my talk page. Thank you.Optakeover 05:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

162.127.23.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

May I ask if it was truly wise to block this IP for only 3 hours? This has been the same vandal for several days over (same nonsense about denny on May 4, May 8, May 9, not to mention similar editing patterns. The Evil Spartan 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a school. If it continues we can soft-indefblock and place a {{schoolblock}}. Keep and eye and let me know id it persists vandalizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching it vandalize for days. The guy will just be backing adding his crap tomorrow or the next day, as he's been doing for weeks, even months if you check the history (seems to show only vandalism, and on repeated articles and in the same type). There is plenty of precedent for blocking schools for longer periods of time, as in fact you originally did: {{schoolblock}}. The Evil Spartan 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be one student, and that is why I want to wait and see as I do not want to block the entire school. Next time he does it, we shall permablock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

are you aware

of the harassment I'm currently getting? And is there anything I can do to stop it or am i just wiki-screwed? Lsi john 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I left my comments at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Creating Policy

Please reconsider your placement of the proposed tag at the Creating policy page. It has been tagged as guideline since May 2005 [31]. Only in the last week or so has there been objection and an attempt to demote it. Please revert yourself. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see... In any case, someone already beat me to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

• Can you pop over and delete the page, User talk:Lsi admin. User:Lsi john wishes this, but at the moment he is blocked per WP:3RR. I have removed my objections to this deletion, and I have detailed why on that talk page. Thank you for your time. Smee 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Page deleted and recreated with the {{usernameblock}} only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Though I am not opposed to this myself. It appears that User:Lsi john probably is. I had made my prior request above out of acknowledgement of his frustration and state of upset due to the recent circumstances. But if that is what you feel is best for the page at present, I have no objection. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I e-mailed you, Jossi. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I disagree with your behavior that strikes me as a bad faith enforcment of WP:BLP. I will make a complaint about your behavior at the Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard Andries 23:27, 9 May 2007 (U0TC) [32]Andries 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gere

Just a reminder that the RfC you opened about the Gere issue is now a week old. I think it proved to be productive, despite my original objections: it has made clear that the numbers are strongly against inclusion of the disputed material. Thanks. FNMF 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it worked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A note

You have recently blocked Sarenne (talk · contribs) over 3RR, and unblocked when she promised to stop. Over a different incident and promise, I have blocked and unblocked her as well. However, I should note that despite your unblock notice that "user promises not to violate 3RR", she did break 3RR once more on MIPS architecture. FYI. >Radiant< 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The block should increase and increase for each new incident, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out. HerHis recent comments have been troubling, and she's accusing people of lying and other nastiness. >Radiant< 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm a he, and yes, I'm accusing Fnagaton of lying, nothing more. You have a problem with that ? Sarenne 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:CIV has a problem with calling people liars. >Radiant< 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm accusing him of being a liar so you and the policy have a real problem. Sarenne 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But maybe he was lying. Some do that in a dispute, and, yes, it should be noted -- in a non-ad-hominem manner.

A question about 3RR

I appreciate if you answer my question. Cheers!(Arash the Archer 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the welcome. But you didn't answer my question. It is obvious that user Miskin has done more than 3 reverts that had nothing to do with BLP or Vandalism. So what was the reason for no action?(Arash the Archer 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Because all editors involved were actively editing, changing and reverting, and the edits were all different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that blocks for 3RR violation and not punitive, but preventative. I do not see any further editwarring to warrant a block at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I underestand your second argument but I don't agree with the first one. Since it is obvious that Miskin is pushing his/her POV here. (Arash the Archer 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to butt in, but I made a comment over there. Talk:Last_stand#Persian_Gate_and_Porus. I hope it sheds some light on the argument and prevents it from getting out of hand. SanchiTachi 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

-Preventative?

I'm curious why my block was almost 24 hours after my R's. You didn't block me and its history now.. but still, I'm curious. It seemed punitive in my case. Lsi john 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for your unblocking on that basis, and after a short exchange we agreed that you may have needed a break in any case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Though I guess I might have preferred being told nicely to take 24 or be blocked.. with which I would have complied. Convictions are hard to get expunged, and successive penalties don't get shorter. ;) (not that I'm anticipating successive penalties.. but I wasn't anticipating this one either).

And, that being said, though I didn't know the first edit counted, I did technically break the rule. And therefore I have no one to blame but myself. Thanks. Lsi john 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Privacy issue

[AN/I] Lsi john 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw it, but I will not comment as I am involved in editing articles with you and the others in that incident. Let other admins deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't soliciting involvement, just tossing a heads up. Lsi john 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External links guidelines

Hi Jossi. I wanted to let you know I started a bit more activity on the discussion over "When assessing external links you need to simply ask..." section, suggesting it be eliminated. I believe you added the section and I was hoping for your input since at the moment the only people commenting on the page are in support of eliminating. I know it can be a draining page to work on, but having different points of view is important to developing good guidelines. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done my bit there, and other editors are now involved. It is quite tedious nowadays to make any changes to guideline pages, and that is probably not a a bad thing... although it makes us unable to adapt to the new challenges generated by the project's success. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR???

Hello,

You left a message on my talk page saying I had violated 3RR in some way. I think you should look at the edits more closely. None of them, so far as I know, was a revert. None of them. I was trying to create a compromise, and I believe I achieved one. Please review the diffs more carefully.

I believe this is a bogus 3RR complaint from an editor who, in fact, was edit warring against me, by making reverts rather than changes. I think that he should be warned that it is wrong to deal with disagreements over content by fileing bogus 3RR reports.

For you convinience, here are the diffs in the report:

[33][34] [35] [36]

There should be no problem with this attempt (see also the edit summaries) to achieve the compromise, and I ask that you warn Minderbinder against such wikilawyering. Please also review the history of the page, and note that two other editors are edit warring, including Minderbinder, while I am not. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)

Jossi, thank you for placing the RFC re the Gere/Crawford marriage on my behalf. I think the discussion is moving along well. I have decided to take a break from that issue. I would like to ask for a third opinion on a couple of issues, both of which are to do with "exceptional claims" and Metropolis magazine. the reason I am contacting you specifically is that you were kind enough to offer comments on one of the issues previously.

1. On the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) page an editor is continualy inserting an item which I think is an exceptional claim. The item is...

In it's 14th January 2000 issue, Tokyo Weekender, an English language bi-monthly free magazine reported on controversial claims made by the Japan Traveller magazine that the Tokyo Classified was "exaggerating their circulation figures" by "claiming 40,000 to 50,000 circulation while attesting that they actually print a fraction of that number."

If you look at the Weekender source you will see that the author is refering to a newcomer magazine that has made a claim of crirculation fraud against Metropolis. Note that the author calls the publisher of the article a "newcomer, "wet behind the ears" and that he casts doubt on the claim. "While I'm not certain of Tokyo Classified's circulation figures (nor is, I'm certain, James C. Gibbs)". I have argued that this is not an acceptable source for such a claim.

Regarding the original article on Japan Traveler to which the author refers, I cannot find it on the Japan Traveler site, Google and the Internet Archive but it does not appear. In fact, it appears to be a blocked site, on the Internet Archive, which means that the publisher himself has blocked it.

What is your opinion on the use of the Weekender source?

2. On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) page I have the reverse issue, where an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information from Metropolis. The removed claims here: [37] Talk about the claim is here: [38]. In this case my position is that the major exceptional claim is that Baker lied to the public, and that these removed claims support the major claim. In other words, the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right.

If you remember you actually read through the article some time ago [39] and said that these claims were not exceptional. However, the issue keeps coming up. I appreciate your advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please note that the histories of the users Special:Contributions/221.253.85.230, Special:Contributions/heatedissuepuppet and to some extent Special:Contributions/David Lyons who are adding this material as they appear to be accounts set up specifically to attack Metropolis and the Baker issue in particular.

Hu Sparzilla. Dunno if I will have time to look into this in the next few days. But if I do, I will surely take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I bet there's no need to tell you this, but if you have a look at the first issue, you should be aware that the anonymous editor who has been putting that claim in originally referred to the printed publication - which of course should be enough on its own. Also, please see the Metropolis talk page for a really long and informative comment on the Japan Weekender the same editor posted. Thanks in advance Heatedissuepuppet 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, we now only need comment on item 2 above (exceptional claims on Nick Baker page). Your guidance would be most appreciated. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I opened an RFC on this issue: Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Your comments are appreciated. Sparkzilla 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary escalation?

If you think that this request for mediation is unnecessary escalation then please explain how we can collaborate in this case when the article oscillates between two very different versions. I think that no collaboration is possible anymore, only reverts. Andries 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question in your e-mail. You only tried to intimidate me. Andries 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not. And yes, I answered your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will post your e-mail to me here so that everybody can have his or her own judgment about your e-mail to me. Is that okay for you? Andries 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a breach of etiquette. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a far greater violation of etiquette to publicly misrepresent your private communication to me and if I can correct that with publishing our communication then I think that would learn you a lesson not to break etiquette again. Andries 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please retract your comment above? The one that misrepresented is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said to you in that email is that you will not prevail in attempting to escalate this; and that your intentions to escalate are way too transparent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You should know better by now, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you insist, this was my message to you:

Just to let you know that I can see through your tactics. These will not work, and you know it.

Attempting to take this to mediation when we just completed a first phase of responding to the GA review? No way. Attempting to escalate this to the ArbCom? Good luck. (a) ArbCom will not take in content disputes. You know that already; (b) Your past behavior in your two botched mediations and recent ArbCom case will work against you; (c) Your recent accusations BLP/N only shows your real intention and transparent for all to see;

You will not prevail, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the e-mail. Again, I do not think that collaboration is possible when the article oscillates between two highly divergent versions and when both factions are unwilling to use "the other" version as a basis for further improvement of the article. The inability to collaborate justifies mediation. Andries 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your inability to collaborate does not justifies anything, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

why should I do the extra work of giving exhaustive comments on a very flawed piece of writing when a good piece of writing is already available. I am unwilling to do unnecessary work and have years of my work thrashed for no good reason at all. That is not uncollobarative that is just common sense and practical. Andries 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because that is the way Wikipedia works. Can you please consider that you may be disrupting the collaboration process to make a point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is generally accepted practice and basic politeness everywhere to avoid unnecessary work for others. Wikipedia is not an exception to this rule. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The GA review, which you gladly accepted, says that the article in its previous state was not a "good piece of writing". You keep dismissing points made by third party editors, not only here but everywhere lately. Why do you ask for third party opinions if you are not willing to listen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I stated that the old version was reasonable and that the re-write was worse. I see no contradiction between the GA review and my opinion. I see no good reason to revert to a worse version and wait until it gets better. That is the wrong order. First make something better and then replace the old version with the better version. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But that can only be achieved by collaborating on a new version, which you have not done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will start my own new version. I will not try to fix Momento's fatally flawed re-write. Andries 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "own" version? How that is collaboration, Andries? Are you OK, Andries? Seems to me that you have lost your bearings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ï hereby invite your for collaboration. Andries 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an invitation, Andries. This is a wiki. I would suggest, and I mean this as sincerely as possible, that you take a break and during the break take a hard look at your behavior over the last few days. Do some self-reflection about your motives, your state of mind at this time, and your expectations about this project. I am taking a break as well. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral redirect

Hi. Smee moved the list to "documents" as the cause was clearly lost on the other front. Please move it back to "reports", if you would - I do not want an edit war over a move to start screwing things up. Thanks. --Justanother 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed at length on the talk page. I moved it to "documents" as a concession to User:Jossi and as part of the discussion. If you look at the "proposal" section, there was a majority opinion for the move. Smee 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• How is 2:2 a majority either way? Lsi john 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your count is incorrect. Smee 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• I counted the number of agreed and opposed per your poll. You are using other opinions and that may be fine. I wouldn't know. Lsi john 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please continue discussion at relevant articles' talk pages, so as to avoid clogging up users' talk pages. Smee 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

What a mess. Only an admin can undo a move... Double redirects is a mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why I asked you first. I will clean up the doubles later. I asked for pp. --Justanother 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask at the WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to fix the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's decide the issue first, no? --Justanother 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Jossi, thanks for your encouragement, and the star! EdJohnston 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Everything's better when we're patient with each other. Thanks for keeping cool too. Cheers, -Will Beback ·:· 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Mediation of Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture

Greetings. Having talked to User:Mr.Z-man, I'd like to offer to assist with mediation. I have background in the study of religion, though not specializing in NRMs or cults. Please let me know if you'd accept my involvement and any suggestions, too. If involved, I would apprentice in effect w/Zman. Thanks. HG 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. You will need to talk to User:Dking that so far has not been willing to engage in the mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Placed my offer on Dking's talk page and at the mediation case here. Meanwhile, let me ask you a few questions.

1. Forgive me if this sounds naive, but one of your chief concerns is that, by including a group (e.g., Mormons or Christian Scientists), there is an implied claim that the group is a cult. Justanother suggested that the article qualify its claim, e.g. "Alleged cults and...." (Now I see that Dking also seems to suggest "alleged cults.") What was your response to these suggestions? Provided that the allegations are referenced and duly notable, wouldn't this alleviate any undue implication that the Wikipedia Encyclopedia itself (rather than those making the allegation) considers the group a cult?
2. Along these same lines, you seem to be concerned about whether allegations against certain groups/people have been given undue weight. (WP:Undue) Would you please clarify which groups/individuals, in this dispute, you believe have not been substantiated as either NRM nor an "alleged cult"? (e.g., Mormons, Christian Scientists, Ayn Rand, William Reich) For instance, I see there are now four sources on Rand, fn 15-18.[40] At first glance, this seems like adequate referencing.
3. Mr.Z-man raised the question of old references. For instance, if a notable cultural work names XYZ as a cult in 1900, would you object to the inclusion of this naming in the article? Even if XYZ is not a considered a cult today, I don't see why this is objectionable if properly contextualized. E.g., the Mormons were treated like an abusive group and persecuted in the past (due to the 19th C anti-polygamy movement), but couldn't past still be recorded in an encyclopedia?

Thanks for your consideration. As I try to understand people's concerns and explore potential common ground, I also will pose some questions to Dking once he responds to me. Take care, HG 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to respond to my questions, here, at my talk page, or on mediation page. Thanks.HG 03:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While I realize you're on break, wanted to let you know that I've made a series of recommendations and posed questions on the article's talk page. Please comment there when you can, thanks! HG | Talk 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my question to you?

I have asked you serious questions about your attempt to censor my talkpage. You refuse to answer, and even delete the issue from your archive. This raises serious concerns about what rights fellow-editors have.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJossi&diff=130324547&oldid=130293611 for evidence that you have deleted the question, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=130293611#What.27s_with_this_.27selective_archiving.27_idea.2C_Jossi.3F for the previous version.

What are you playing at, Jossi? Revera 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See the responses given to your friend Adries about your violation of WP:BLP and abuse WP:USER, some of which I have copied below:

User talk space is not a free speech zone to make vulgar and unnecessary comments about living persons. No personal attacks is a universal policy. The action was quite justifiable. FCYTravis 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship?" As I said, Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. The Interwebs have plenty of places where you may freely make vulgar insults or string together a bunch of unproven allegations about someone and then call them all of the above. Wikipedia space is not one of them. I have similarly removed your comments from this page, because the BLP Noticeboard is not the place for it, either. FCYTravis 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to justify how personal attacks against a living person are valid material for a user talk page. See WP:USER. Using userspace pages for polemical purposes is prohibited. FCYTravis 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling my page, and respect my wikibreak. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the wording of the policy WP:NPA is such that it is clear that it is only intended between Wikipedia contributors. Andries 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You already made your points in the noticeboard, that were dully refuted by a number of editors there. Please take it there if you want to pursue this further. Any further comments here will be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome

(you wrote) Thanks for that priceless piece of advise. I'll keep it at hand for those times when one needs it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome, my friend. I was glad I could help.

Be healthy,

Michael David 11:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments

Jossi, I appreciate your comment about the complexity of the RFC. As you correctly pointed out, it is now very difficult for editors like yourself to make any comment. In fact, I followed the RFC example you gave me a few weeks ago. This is how I originally added it [41]. As you can see the original as posted is quite simple and clear.

I took this to the Admin Noticeboard because I feel User:David Lyons has made it a deliberate strategy to subvert this RFC by removing and rewriting my original comments and adding irrelevant points (CoI for example). When I tried to stop the rewriting he started an edit war about the meaning on the space where involved editors should post.

It's extremely frustrating to go through weeks just to get an answer to two simple questions: 1. are these claims exceptional? (in fact you answered this a long time ago[42] and 2. Do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP?

Should I simply revert the body of the RFC back to the original? Your advice is most appreciated. Sparkzilla 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have simplified the page so that it is very similar to the original RFC that was posted. I hope you will find it now acceptable enough to be able to provide an opinion. Sparkzilla 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thank you for your comment. although to clarify we are actually discussing TWO articles. The first is an op-ed, where the publisher claimed Baker was lying. The second is a feature article that is a round-up of the case.

The point I am really trying to find out about is -- do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP? For example, say someone is accused of being a murderer in source 1. Source 2 then reports that he is a murderer. We have multiple sources so we can say he is a murderer in WP. Now say that source 3 says he is a murderer that used a knife (and say that source 3 is the only one that says he used a knife). Is it acceptable to say that the murderer used a knife in WP, even though only a single source says so? If you can answer here and I will post the result over to the RFC, that would be great. Sparkzilla 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It would also be extremely useful for all editors if you could confirm whether the claims are exceptional or not. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, David Lyons continues to try to obfuscate the RFC. He is now edit warring on a whole section of claims that are not even in the disputed text. [43] and [44]. Apart from ignoring your advice to simplify the RFC I feel this is highly disruptive, and ask what action can be taken. Sparkzilla 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your note on my talk page.

His talk page does appear to me to be pushing the envelop on WP:USER, if not an out and out violation.

I will leave a note on his talk page and give him a couple of days to see how he responds.

I am not an admin, so I don't feel really comfortable deleting anything on there, but a warning will establish that he was made aware of the policy.

Regarding his other material, he posted it in 3 places and you can see here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non evident risk in articles lacking critical references that it is receiving the attention that it deserves.

Take care.

TheRingess (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurauth

Perhaps you wouldn't mind shortening User:Maurauth's block? I disagree with him, but think he should have at least had the chance to revert his revert (as he seems to have been willing to do) before you blocked him for 24 hours. Why not just a short block so he can cool off? Maybe an hour, maybe 3? I disagree with him, but believe he was acting in good faith. It is your decision, but I thought I'd put in a word on his behalf. Mahalo nui Jossi. --Ali'i 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User is now unblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider

Consider unblocking Maurauth per his talk page promise to not edit the article in question for 24 and his promise to tie himself to me and 1rr. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your tagging of my images

Are you doing this for all images in general, or just focusing on images that I have uploaded? Smee 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I was reading some of the book articles you created and saw that forgot to add the source of the image, so I chose to alert you to the fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of work for you to find all of these articles that I had uploaded books for and tag all of them, is all, as opposed to a bot or a different editor that does this for fun, in general, on lots of images, and not just singling out a particular editor, is all. It just appears a certain way to me, perhaps, as petty, sorry if that is not what you intended. Smee 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I am sorry if that is your perception. Please do not feel singled out, just thought that you would be interested in fixing these, and avoid problems with future book and video cover uploads. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is just a lot of time on your part, when normally these things are done by bots or users that really get a kick out of leaving these automated type messages on my talk page, that's all. It was a bit surprising. Smee 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It does not take much time at all. See [45] where you can find all the images you uploaded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But it is still time. Time for you to notice, time for you to check my contributions in particular, as opposed to just images in general, and time for you to tag them all. But no matter, the issue is done. Smee 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

• Now, it's off for me to go find more reputable secondary sourced citations from which to create/write yet other new articles on books or other interesting notable topics...  :) Smee 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Happy editing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I find the search for lots and lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations from different sources, and then the creation/writing of new articles not yet on the Project, to be most therapeutic, especially after other stressful occurences of late related to this project... Happy editing to you as well. Smee 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, being able to put things behind is always a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as is the therapeutic feeling I get from creating new articles sourced to reputable citations. Smee 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Off-topic thought

Jossi, have you heard of or perhaps read the book Freakonomics? Smee 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. It is in my bookshelf. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, neat. Have you read it? Smee 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, a while ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What did you think of Chapter 2? Smee 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't recall that chapter, but I will look it up and respond in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. It has some interesting implications in today's day and age, as compared to the time period in which the contents of Chapter 2 took place... Smee 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

FYI

Please see Template talk:Prem Rawat. Smee 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

New Editors May Need Help

Jossi,

It seems that some new editors may be having a problem with Attachment Therapy and some related articles. [here][here]

I don't know anything about the subject, but I am somewhat familiar with Fainites and she seems to be pretty level headed. It appears that someone posted a helpful hint on [StokerAce's page].

From what I gather, there may be about 6 separate accounts who all post forcefully with the same opinions.

I'm tossing this to you because I'd like to see someone look at it with a critical eye.

Thanks, Lsi john 12:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wright Again

I notified Mr. Wright of the possible violation of WP:USER, you can see his response on my talk page and on his.

TheRingess (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand message

Hello, I think you may be mistaken, I did not try to vandelise Mormonism because I don't know how to edit a page. Sorry if I've caused you any bother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.73.89 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

List of sovereign states

That page was reverted 3 times by anon users ([46]), yesterday and today using numerical ips. It's hard to believe that they are all newbies. What do you think could be done (except for a full protection which I don't want and don't ask for)? Alæxis_{¿question?} 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If they persist, report them at WP:AIV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism Vandalism

When did I vandalise a mormonism page?? I only edit one page and that is the page that I look after - Terry Ronald. honeybfly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.89 (talk • contribs)

You are editing without a user name, and your IP address may be shared with other users. You can easily register a user name to avoid problems such as these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi to the person who messaged me, i'm sorry but i think we have a case of mistaken identity, you claim that i've vandalised the mormon page, yet i've never been on that page, could you please verify this matter, because it's troubling to be accused of making changes that i haven't made, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.89 (talk • contribs)

As explained in your talk page, your IP address has been blocked for vandalism. To avoid these blocks, you may consider registering a user name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments in User:Jimbo Wales source

These comments are needed and only serve to discourage new users from making potentially helpful edits. In addition they have a non professional tone, and their very existence is not compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Otherwise, why not add hidden warnings to every page? --Afed 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a user page, and it is commented out. I see no problem with it, whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for it to be there. It's superfluous and discouraging. That is the problem with it. --Afed 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous? don't think so. Is very much on point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for setting a good example at Talk:Prem Rawat. I have been trying to offer polite warnings to keep things at a reasonable level across the board. Thank you for understanding and again for the good example to others involved. Vassyana 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your concern. It is not always easy to be at the receiving end of comments such as these made by a certain editor, and quite frustrating when, after third-party opinions are made declaring the inappropriateness of such comments, the editor disregards them and continues unabated with same type of comments on me and on others. From now on, rather than respond in talk, any further comments of that type will be reported on one of the noticeboards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Article

How about an article, list of groups associated with the anti-cult movement? Lsi john 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Experimenting with the Republican Party (United States) page"

Jossi:

I reveiced this message from you:

"Thank you for experimenting with the page Republican Party (United States)n Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

I was not signed into my account when I made my change to the Republican Party page. I am not a new user and do not need to be directed to the sandbox for experimentation or welcome page for a tutorial.

As for the change I made, it contained verifiable information from the Republican Party website. It was CORRECT information. I changed a couple of sentences regarding the original meaning of "G.O.P. and cited the Republican Party's homepage. The wiki page's information was simply not complete. "G.O.P." was an abbreviation for "Gallant Old Party," which was another way of referring to the Republican Party dating back to 1875. It was not until 1876 that "Grand Old Party" appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary as another name for the Party. This information can be found easily by checking out Republican Party history per their website. I advise you to review it yourself: http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3

I am interested in making this encyclopedia as complete as it can possibly be. You must be open to new, properly written contributions citing legitimate sources. Sure, it's hard to accept that the page to which you've contributed is not as comprehensive as you thought. But, frankly, I don't care. This isn't about you (or me for that matter). It's about the veracity of the information we are presenting.

~ask123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask123 (talk • contribs)

(please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~)

Yes, you made that edit without being logged on (see diff] and the source you provided did not match the text you added. If you are not logged, there is now way for others to know that you are not a new user. As for the revert, note that the source says that "apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was "gallant old party." Your text asserted that "actually stood for 'Gallant Old Party.". I have corrected this in the article. In the future, please log on and stay close to the sources you provide. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I was quite close to the source without plagiarizing it. And my change does match the source. The bottom line is that the Party itself believes the original meaning of the initials G.O.P. was "Gallant Old Party." However, I will conceed that perhaps, per your note, a better revision would be "apparently stood for Gallant Old Party."

Still, the change has not been made in the article. Taking my edit away, rather than changing it to a better revision (per your thoughts), just stalls progress (especially when you've verified the information via the source). Taking the revision away entirely and going back to the only semi-correct information does little to help both those trying to perfect the article as editors and those educating themselves as readers. A couple of days ago, you wrote on another user's talk page regarding reverts and their resultant edit wars, "going back to a flawed version is, well, flawed." I think it's a good idea to heed your own advice here. Ask123 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask123, have you seen this? Discussion on the talk page of an article, after you have been reverted, is a great way to get a consensus for your suggested change. Lsi john 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're sarcasm is cute and entirely irrelevant. This is not a style or opinion point in need of a long talk page battle for consensus. This is not a controversial matter over which deliberation is needed. This is a simple and short fact that is actually in the official history of the organization begin described. Your suggestion would be like asking for a talk page consensus before noting that Bill Clinton's hair is gray (or is it silver?) or that Paul Allen was among the founders of Microsoft. But, wait, not everyone may know that Paul Allen was a founder of the Microsoft company! They all think that Bill Gates founded it and know nothing of Mr. Allen! Maybe we need a Microsoft talk page discussion to sort this one out. This, of course, doesn't happen. Why? Because Microsoft openly states in it's offical history that Mr. Allen was a co-founder of the company with Mr. Gates. Opening up a discussion on a talk page for this issue would unneccesarily bottle-neck the editing process and fill it with pointless redundancy. Such a measure would be a waste of the time and intelligence of the Wikipedia community. It is superfluous, just as is a talk page discussion of Bill Clinton's hair color or of a brief historical point made in Republican Party's official history. Let's save the talk page consensus pleas for devisive and/or controversial points.

Oh, and, yes, I am familiar with WP:BRD. But there is not "deadlock," or a "discussion that needs to move forward" (as in talk page discussion), or a "dispute resolution that has failed." And most importantly, with the exception of you, there is no one who disputes this information at all, thus requiring the consensus process to begin in the first place (see sentence 1, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a method for reaching consensus..."). And, as the icing on the cake, it "seems" that you are ony disputing because you have Republican Party (United States) on your watchlist, and you do this with anyone that changes the article regardless of their change(s). ask123 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend any sarcasm at all. AGF, my friend. Allow me to explain:

1. You edited the page (without signing in). (First step in BRD).
2. You got reverted. (Second step in BRD).
3. You came here to complain, instead of the article talk page... (not in BRD).
4. This editor replied to you in good faith. (not in BRD).
5. You replied here, instead of the article talk page, and gave more reasons for the edit. (not in BRD).

You could have signed in and re-edited. You could have discussed on the talk page, where other editors might have agreed with you. Coming to this editor's page is not part of WP:BRD

• I looked and didn't see where you had used the article page at all. And therefore suggested you read WP:BRD.

Now you're back here on his talk page, to say I was being sarcastic and that you are familiar with WP:BRD but don't have to use it?

Nothing about WP:BRD requires the long protracted discussion battle that you imply.

Take a step back, my friend. I was trying to help.

(and I don't have that page on my watch list. You'll probably realize shortly that I'm not Jossi)

Lsi john 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, John. I was too quick to respond and didn't see your tag. No, I didn't use BRD. I didn't use the talk page becaue I was engaged in this conversation with Jossi immediately after making my change.

Jossi: I don't think that the lengthy, protracted process of BRD is not necessary for every factual addition to an article. I can understand if it the addition sparks deviciveness, but it shouldn't be taken overboard. A talk page session is unnecessary for a fact as easily verifiable as this one. This back-and-forth is already insanely long. No, it became a waste of time long ago. It began on May 5th; today is the 22nd of the month. Editors shouldn't turn every minor change into a bottlenecker on the talk page. Articles will not be able to evolve properly if this happens (and any evolution at all will happen remarkably slowly). As long as that's the way every change is handled, the perspective of a small group (namely, those with the time to spend arguing every point on talk pages) will reign. And believe it or not, people like you and me do not represent a consensus or the conduit to the most accurate information on a topic. I'm just about done with this. Cheers. ask123 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Better scan?

• Jossi, can you upload a higher-quality version of the scan of the back cover, so that we can read the text at the bottom of the cover? Smee 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Jossi, can you please respond to this request? Thank you. Smee 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I thought I did. I uploaded a better version than the previous one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, the text at the bottom of Image:Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji book cover back.jpg is still not readable. Smee 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Will you please upload a higher quality version of the image so that the text at the bottom of the book cover can be read? Smee 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I did. As per Fair use, I cannot upload a high-res image. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to upload a "high" res image, just a low res image with just enough quality to read the text at the bottom of the image. Please do this. If not, that's okay, I will at some point soon, but if you did it would be faster. I am sure I could scan an image that is lower than 100Kb that shows the text, when I get a copy of the book handy. Smee 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

The text is readable, at least it is in my monitor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not on mine. I see that you are unwilling to upload a higher quality scan, that is unfortunate. I will try to get ahold of a copy of the book for scanning purposes. Smee 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

I can provide you with the text, if you want. Just that a higher res image will fail WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will upload an image with a higher resolution than the current one, that is still of a low resolution. Smee 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

That is indeed not needed. The current image is perfectly OK as it pertains to WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I will find and upload an image with readable text, that still is a low resolution image. Smee 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

That was not an opinion, Smee. Why are you pressing on this? I have offered to transcribe the text if that is what you need. What else do you need? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not pressing anything. I have made my decision, and will upload a better quality image when I get a chance. It will be useful for the reader, and will still be of a low enough resolution so as to be fair use. As I can see you are getting annoyed for some reason by this, I will not continue to add to this thread any longer. Smee 00:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Sure. Whatever suits you, just note that I am not annoyed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded larger image that is readable, sharpened so that is even more readable. Hope it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Most appreciated. Smee 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Question

Jossi, will it be unbecoming to post a photo Gavin Newsom for an other editor to see...before releasing it. I believe the photo is a much better photo than the present one, but would like other editor's opinion. What is the etiquette on these sort of matters? I await your reply.PEACETalkAbout 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload with a different name, and let editors judge which one is better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do I upload? PEACETalkAbout 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload. The link is on the left navigation bar in all WP pages. Just make sure you provide a source and a license. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The regular place...Ok.Jossi, Listen, the Admin thing is a joke! Honest...lite humour.PEACETalkAbout 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Done. ≈ jossi ≈, now how do I get input...just slip it in? Replace the other one? Can you tell me? Your "Opinion"? Do, tell.TalkAbout 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Replace the image in the article, and if it sticks, you are done. If you get reverted, discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

oops

My sincere apologies, jossi. It is easy for me to go several days without thinking to check my email. I understand your concerns, though I'm far too late now to act on them. Please do let me know if there is anything now ongoing that I can help with. ··coelacan 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems. All is well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark

Jossi, I'm at 3R and can't edit in Landmark Education anymore. I've requested protection. Can anything be done to stop these two editors from trying to force their 'version' when they cant get a concensus for the edits? The material has been discussed on the talk page and other than those two, I see nobody in favor of including what they're trying to include.

And, they are refusing (or failing) to address the questions and concerns that are being raised. Lsi john 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And, rather than address the questions and article content, one of the editors is trying to tie in my original username, as if its relevant. Lsi john 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow WP:DR. You can start at the WP:MEDCAB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, you can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. I cannot protect it myself because I edited that article in the past. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for PP. I'll research the MedCab procedures. Thanks. Lsi john 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Me uploading pictures without copyright

Hi

Please stop filling my talk page with all this unfair copyright stuff. The pictures you just put down are from the Mercedes-Benz Car Configurator, and the picture has no copyright. Please stop filing up my talk page, as I said before.

I doubt that Wjs13 knows what a free image is. Gracenotes^T § 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him, and will unblock after he agrees not to upload such images. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I still doubt that he had any idea what he was actually doing wrong. It's a bit hard to read our policy on non-free content when a bot is spamming one's talk page :) I do not contest the block, as it was appropriately preventative, but I suppose that's one down from our jargon. Gracenotes^T § 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd watch him carefully for a while. I don't think that English is his first language.

Your note

Because it's been incorporated into the article; the content has not been deleted. By all means restore the title and redirect it if you want, but it seems pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that a merge is needed. The main article Martin Luther is becoming too big already, and such lists are useful navigational aids. I will restore it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a useful navigational aid. If the Luther article becomes too long, we can create a Martin Luther (resources) page; at the moment, it's not too long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirects and the template. No big deal though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which redirects have I undone? The template I'm only editing (adding works and putting things in alphabetical order), not undoing anything that I recall. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists. I think that the lists of books and films can have their own article, rather than merged into the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can create a Martin Luther (resources) page if you like, as I said earlier. I'm unclear about why there's such a fuss about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said: no big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for MA article

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Sefringle 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Druids

Thank you. Corvus cornix 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this was your intent, but you full protected rather than semi-protecting. Either the tag or the protection should be changed to match. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sprotected now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Block?

Hello Jossi. I'm sorry to bother, but I just had to drop by and say that I disagree with this block of yours. In fact, I was just about to decline and remove this report from WP:AIV when I discovered that this user had already been blocked! This user made a single vandalism edit today (the last edit being from May 6th), and received a single level 1 bot warning for it. Warning not transgressed, and in fact no further edits were made in the past 3 hours. So why block? Doesn't seem adequate for this situation. Please review. Regards, Húsönd 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Jossi. You are currently online but have not yet replied to my comment. If it's okay with you, I shall unblock the user in question shortly. If you don't reply, I shall interpret your silence as "okay". Thank you. :-) Regards, Húsönd 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive

I've seen a pattern of disruptive editing now, from the same editor, by inserting comments inside another editor's posting. Is this something we keep correcting or is there a guideline against it? Lsi john 02:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline, but I have warned the user twice already. If he continues he could lose his editing privileges for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Including the AfD? Or twice in the current discussion page? I've moved his comments once before and he just now put them back in the same place. Lsi john 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption. See WP:TALK. I have informed the user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lsi john 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Help With Harassment from 69.118.129.76

fyi, now that 69.118.129.76—who you have warned in the past—has been blocked from editing the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page, he/she is now harassing me and other editors. unbelievable. —BaseballDetective 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption for logo?

There seems to be something strange going on. Why is there one contributor asserting that without identifying a logo as a logo, that Wikipiedia is advertising. Now this person is changing massive amounts of articles claiming: "policy 1st - commercial; - assert facts; - selection & organization of facts". Is it just me that can't quite come to terms why is it so difficult to follow a simple Wikipedia guideline that "No caption needed when a logo is shown in an article about that product or organization -- Wikipedia:Captions#Special situations. The edits by In1984 seem very counterproductive. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Non-tagged images from me

Okay fine delete them. I just wont add anymore pictures just in case this stuff happens again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs13 (talk • contribs)

Great. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I need help with an article

Can you take a quick look at an article for me? It was nominated for deletion and the administrator who nominated it took away the nomination but, did not remove the tag. I'm not sure if this was done by accident or purpose. JoeyC5 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

Check your e-mail. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

Hi Jossi. Please send me an email, so I can retrieve your address! Best regards--Rainer P. 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have email enabled... so I cannot send you one.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Is this image okay?

Image:2007 W204 C-Class 200 Kompressor Avantgarde.jpg

See it was from the german wikipedia? I thought that would be allowed?

That depends. Does the image from the German wikipedia has any copyright and source info? If so, please copy it from there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark mediation

Hi Jossi

Hope you are well. As you probably know, there is a MedCab disscussion on the Landmark issues [[47]].

Do you have any comments or suggestions?

Very best wishes. DaveApter 10:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dave. I can see that involved editors are already expressed their viewpoints quite eloquently. Mediation is not easy, and it is better handled by those editors directly involved with the dispute. If I see anything that I can add, I will do so on the talk page. Injecting oneself in other editors' disputes is not a good thing, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree with your assessment and conclusion. Thank you for the suggestion of ArbCom and RFCU. Both are being considered. IMO there is no hurry and the longer we wait, the more the edit patterns will be established. Thanks again. Lsi john 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the well-being of editors and actions that will enable the project to move forward without disruption. It is not about proving somebody wrong, Lsi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And gross violations of policy are easy to document, whereas subtle patterns require more time to emerge. It's not about proving anyone wrong. It's about not crying wolf. My perceptions may not be shared by other editors. And until there is an overwhelming concensus of opinion, then my opinion is simply my opinion. I will not waste time at ArbCom or RFCU without sufficient support and substance. And, IMO, that will emerge over time. I am (more or less) taking my lead from more experienced editors, who appear to be having similar issues. Lsi john 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel War

Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no long requires this to be present. SanchiTachi 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know what is the issue and why you seem so upset. Let it be for a while. The article is now under OTRS review, and the page is protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no long requires this to be present. SanchiTachi 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the protection is about to expire and I'm sure that it will open up into a revert war. I'm not going to change the page anymore, nor edit the main page at all. I just wanted to warn you that it expires soon and will probably need to be monitored or protected again. SanchiTachi 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection extended indef pending OTRS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no long requires this to be present. SanchiTachi 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance, could you look at Talk:St._John's_College,_U.S.. There is an IP address that keeps trying to add a personal website to the page. The person doesn't understand that the objection is primarily over personal websites not allowed in the external links section. SanchiTachi 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not see such a link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Frondelet has removed it. Check the history or look at the talk page. It comes up quite a bit. "Once again, I am putting my web address up on this page. Suppressing the opposition is not winning the argument. Please be reasonable, Johnnies. PT" Thats just one quote by the fellow admitting to the link being his own personal website. I was just wondering if semi-protecting would fix the problem, as the person refuses to use a registered name. SanchiTachi 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: the 3RR violation was dealt with on the 3RR page. This issue is resolved. SanchiTachi 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no long requires this to be present. SanchiTachi 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I notice you recently welcomed user:DoubleNine to Wikipedia and that you are also an administrator. He left me the following note "22:22, 10 May 2007 DoubleNine (Talk | contribs) (1,950 bytes) (rv no need to it was restored)", so I am not sure he is actually "new". Nevertheless, please check his recent edits against me for I believe he is trying to censor me. In particular, please view my "missing" post to User talk:Woohookitty - he unilaterally removed it before the intended recipient could respond and attempted some sort of cover up. You can add Etherroyal to that list of puppets as well. I'd like to hear from an impartial voice. Please advise! Thanks, Mariokempes 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure to be here Jossi Pleasure indeed. (DoubleNine 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Please do not delete other user's comments. If you need help with your disputes, I am willing to lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I wanted to deal with it my self I guess its time for others to help me. I already had asked User talk:Woohookitty to help, but she did not find any problem. (DoubleNine 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

First things first... I believe all these users are puppets. They all sign off with a "(" before their name; they all make the same English spelling mistakes (I could provide a list); and they all have the habit of editing their own edits multiple times in a short span (including editing each others). This is more than a coincidence, since their purpose all seem to support (poorly at that) XGustaX's agenda. My experience with them has been on Talk:Argentina and Talk:Demographics of Argentina. I won't take this further myself, I'll leave it with you, but I ask that you help monitor the situation on the Argentina websites. Thanks!! Mariokempes 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario, can you give me a lists of all these suspected sockpuppets? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I left a list with User talk:Woohookitty. Mariokempes 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi

Dear Jossi:

Can you help in a problem with User:SanchiTachi, with whom you are already acquainted? Based on several messages from others beginning 29 April 2007 that he thus far has not deleted from User_talk:SanchiTachi, I am not alone in having objections to his behavior on WP. In case he has purged more criticism form his Talk page by the time you look at it, here is his current Talk page as archived.

His User page has a provocative entry entitled "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms" (his User page begins, "If you are reading this, please remember the most important Wikipedia rule: Wikipedia:IAR. :)", but that is another matter). The words that it endorses using are "dick" and "bully", based on a misreading of two essays that his entry wiki-links. Without changing anything in his entry, I added a signed response underneath it.

While I was composing an explanation for my action on his Talk page, he posted User_talk:Finell#Please Do Not Vandalize My Talk Page on my Talk page, and he reverted my response to his entry (I did not re-revert). I replied on his talk page, he replied on mine, and I replied on his. He expunged the exchange from his Talk page, with the edit summary "Goodbye, Trolling", but it is archived here. While I did not do a detailed exploration of SanchiTachi's edits of his own Talk page, I quickly found this recent prior instance of his deleting several criticisms of his conduct.

To the best of my knowledge, he did not "[send my] name up for review", as his last post on my Talk page threatened. I actually wish he had (and even urged him to do so), as that would have resulted in a review of the matter by neutral third-parties.

Beyond simply WP:AGF, I truly believe that he is well-intentioned, but he is clueless about how to behave. He is hyper-aggressive and has a dual standard about WP policies as they apply to others' conduct versus how they apply to his conduct. Ironically, what he really needs to do is to follow the language that his own User page quotes from Don't be a dick.

I hope that you can come up with a constructive way to intervene. Thanks.

Finell (Talk) 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what I can do, really. He is already getting substantial feedback from many editors. If he persists with such aggressive behavior, a user RFC may be appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the Finell, Jossi. The above person came and vandalized my user page, which is clearly allowed to cite essays from Wikipedia. I never met that person before, but it is obvious that they would come to my page and then complain here that he is either following me back to my User page to vandalize (a violation of wiki policy) and/or is involved with (either association to or actually is) one involved on the on going dispute, in which other random users are accusing me of being a nazi, or other such things. Below is proof. SanchiTachi 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The attack from Talk:Shane Ruttle Martinez: "SanchiTachi is being very immature, one should question his motives in editing this, perhaps he is a nazi and enemy of this shane person. --user:CmrdMariategui" note, the person is a brand new name and choses me as his first target

2. The user Finell acted in the same manner and edited my user page without my permission, and then proceeded to attack me for removing his unfair criticism.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SanchiTachi&oldid=132607084 as you can see, this was clearly not warranted

4. I am allowed to delete items on my talk page. They can be viewed in the history. I don't care to archive such things, because I only want things that I am actively involved in on my talk page. The above user coming to you to criticize me on removal of information of my talk page is harassment.

Thanks. SanchiTachi 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User Someguy0830 has currently been Wikistalking me. He has come to a new page I created based on an expansion that will be done by the Wikiproject I am a member of. I am a member of the Warhammer 40,000 Wikiproject. We are currently expanding a new section to collection works titled "Graphic Novels" by the Warhammer game under one grouping to clean up other pages of the project and to help with organization. Someone from the comics section came and started complaining about the use of Graphic Novels (even though the page is designed only for what Warhammer 40,000 describes as "graphic novels" and is part of the warhammer page). Regardless, Someguy0830 decided to move the page and claim that it defied naming rules, even though our conventions are established on our wikiproject page Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 that allows for proper nouns to be followed by (Warhammer 40,000), see here or here for examples.

This is the third place that user Someguy0830 has followed me. The 1st and 2nd involve you, as it was here on your page and on the Village Pump Page. Moving a page without consulting the original Wiki project, nor respecting the naming conventions of that group, and wiki stalking are three big offenses. Can you please ask him to stop? Yes, this actually troubles me. SanchiTachi 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please post a notice at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jossi: They posted notices against each other. Here is the one directed at SanchiTachi:[48]. It has attractied a lot of activity very quickly. Finell (Talk) 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for your polite and straightforward language in clarifying the use of the "Unbalanced" tag, at Talk:Mind Dynamics. You could have used harsh language, stated that one editor was wrong or another was right, or admonished someone. But you did not. Instead, you simply addressed the issue at hand politely, with appropriate language. This is most appreciated. Thank you. Yours, Smee 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

moved from PSI Seminars talk

Dear Smee, yes, we all make mistakes, and we can afford ourselves and others the possibility to learn from them. As for your requests for "politeness", I would argue that is our actions and not just our language that need to be polite and respectful. Edit warring is not polite, busting 3RR is not polite, exerting ownership over articles is not polite, biting the newbies is not polite, etc. After a few months in Wikipedia, the public identity we create through our edits emerges, and we are then held accountable for our actions. Read WP:WRW#Wikipedia_keeps_an_Akashic_record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, yes, thank you for pointing these things out. I would argue that I do exhibit, at times, some of those characteristics, and not others. I would also point out that you yourself exhibit many of these characteristics at times, and at times not. It takes two to edit war, however I am working on myself not to do this in the future. However, it is always SO much easier to deal with people if they are polite on talk pages, and virtually impossible to deal with them when they are not. Thank you for acknowledging that we all make mistakes and can give ourselves and others opportunity to learn from them. Smee 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for being objective !

Concerning your good faith when you said that you would grant me unblock etc, I appreciate that very much. It's just that things are more complicated than they seem. I agree that Wikipedia is not and should not be a battleground between different ethnic groups, but unfortunately Duja's ban was guided by his prejudice against Bosniaks, most likely because I run blog which counter-attacks Srebrenica genocide denial. Duja is offended by my right to free speech, but I am not giving it up. Srebrenica Genocide Blog will continue to publish material which counter attacks claims of Srebrenica genocide deniers. You have acted in good faith and I do thank you. I do have every intention to stay away from conflicts; hopefully Duja and other Serbs do the same. It's time for peace. Bosniak 05:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Peace is good. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, Oregon

I see you quickly reverted yourself, but any way I can prevent my removal of a large amount of inappropriate content being interpreted as a bad edit in the future? Thanks! Katr67 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part, I though it was vandalism. No worries. Maybe a better edit summary such as "removing unsuitable content added by anon XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX" will be helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time and effort to provide a 3rd opinion on Talk:Shakti mantras. TheRingess (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jossi. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Since when has it been the policy of wikipedia to classify "relevancy and truth" as vandalism? (76.1.35.153 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm gona jump in on this one and take a guess... that your contribution wasn't sourced? Lsi john 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What contribution? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this one. Lsi john 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Peacent's Rfa

Hello, Jossi. Thank you very much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do tell me. Thanks once again. ~ Best regards, PeaceNT 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure... Hope to see you around spreading good.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! Take care :) PeaceNT 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles

Why did you tell me to see this article? It mentions and displays the declassified documents and provides links to Bosch, George H.W. Bush, Jeb Bush, and George Bush. Pistolpierre 04:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you asked about him in the George W. Bush page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Luis Posada Carriles

I was asking why there is nothing about Posada under the George W. Bush article. George W. Bush is protecting a known terrorist and violating his own Patriot Act and "Bush Doctrine" because he knows that his Dad paid him to blow up the jet in 1976. George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush are terrorists. The recently declassified FBI documents show the link between the CIA and Posada and the Cubana jet bombing. The whole world knows George H.W. Bush was the head of the CIA in 1976. Pistolpierre 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Have you banned anyone lately? Someone took out your page. --Whsitchy 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, more than once. Someone's got a grudge. Banpei 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker RFC summary

I wonder if you could have a look at this and give me your comments [49]. Thank you. Sparkzilla 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

As you are already an admin, this is just to verify technical acumen. The usual questions asked are: 1) Do you know how to check if a proxy is open, including scanning for possibly open ports and actually connecting via the proxy? 2) What method(s) have you used / do you use to check open proxies? 3) What experience do you have in the way of checking open proxies (i.e., have you worked as an IT or server admin, do you use open proxies yourself, etc.)? Even if you are confident of your technical competence, it is still good to answer them as they can clarify your own understanding and there might be particular advice that I could give based on the responses. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I use several tools to check for proxies, including TOR check online tools, nslookup, whois, as well as other tools from VisualWare. I am familiar with some of the most common proxy systems such as TOR and JAP. As always, I would welcome to learn of new tools and processes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The other tool, the most effective tool is a portscan. You can use the online nmap provided my Amidaniel by contacting him for a username and password, or you can get nmap from http://insecure.org/nmap/ If you are at a university, business, or otherwise behind a firewall that might block ports, this may not be effective. Also, the Completewhois tool linked from the Wikiproject page is useful when judiciously interpreted for quickly detecting that a computer is an open proxy, though it does not catch many and if not read carefully will show false positives; for example, there will be red results, perhaps as many as three, if the IP being checked is a dynamic IP, but that is only because that is designed for checking against spam, and dynamic IP addresses generally should not be acting as mail servers so any such IP would likely be a spam server, but that is irrelevant for checking against open proxies because all dynamic IP addresses are then flagged by the Completewhois. —Centrx→talk • 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Developments on List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut

I assume that after blocking edits at this article you've been monitoring it, but I'd like to point out what's been going on there:

• I attempted to engage User:69.118.129.76 (hereafter "69") in a discussion on the talk page to see if we could come to a consensus, but despite an overlong discussion, we got nowhere. You might want to note the quality of his "argument".
• I broadened the discussion by inviting people who had edited the page and the Ridgefield, Connecticut page to also comment and conducted a straw poll to see where we stand. (I looked over WP:Canvass to make sure I was acting within the bounds of those rules, and I'm sure I am).
• The result of the straw poll has been that a number of editors agree on keeping that section and four "editors", including 69, have supported deletion (one other editor supported deletion and I changed that editor's mind).
• The four editors supporting deletion are all anonymous accounts and, besides 69, they are all single-purpose accounts. I have filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets against "69" and the rest (see the complaint page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/69.118.129.76). The talk pages of all four Wikipedia accounts have been formally notified of the complaint.

I don't know what to do next. Any suggestions? Noroton 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed to SHA-512 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Tool

Hi Jossi,

Please take a look at this diff [50]; and also please note that this user has not had any edits to the article or to the talk page recently. --Aminz 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice

• This is a notice regarding WP:COI, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Smee 04:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Happy Jossi's Day!

Jossi has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jossi's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jossi! Love, Phaedriel 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks... much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jossi: What a treat! Congratulations. And with pentagrams, pentagons, and their golden ratios as a bonus. Finell (Talk) 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:D ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Datamatrix.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Datamatrix.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The SVG replacement is fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for voting on my Rfa, didn't work out though --Munkee madness 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe too early for you... Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I think you over looked this report by accident: [51].Azerbaijani 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Armenianism

I understand and I apologize for my behavior. However, it's obvious that Scannie came to Wikipedia to harass other users (in particular Armenians). To us, for one to say that there is no Armenian Genocide is like someone telling a Jew that there was no Holocaust. Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know. It is tough... but WP is that kind of place ... we get to engage with people that we otherwise would not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Permanent Ban

Is it possible to have a permanent ban for unregistered edits from a specific IP address? Our IP serves an entire school and students take pleasure in vandalising anything they think they can’t be tracked for. If they had to sign in to edit, your lives as administrators could be much simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpatswiki (talk • contribs)

Sure. Give me the IP address and I will apply a block that will require users to register before editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Thanks I agree but wrong page! You need to put this on Kellen, Lsi john and escpially Rockpocket who started it all Because it seems people can personally attack me but I am getting blamed for attack others which I know which I know is not true I am ANTI NPA--Migospia☆ 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of these attacks? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my archives and in their edit summaries. You put the box on my page under what grounds?--Migospia☆ 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments about "attacking back". If you do not have diffs, I cannot help you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you were the diffs were please tell me what diffs you have to say I was personally attacking someone because this is insane and double standard behaviour like this on Wikipedia gets me really angry and upset. What is this *attacking back* thing you are talking about?--Migospia☆ 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since its "especially" me who is being accused, FYI here is the section in which she claims I am personally attacking her. Note, she sent few a few emails inbetween, one of which suggested I was a racist because I reverted the removal of a fair use rationale template. Amazingly, the reasoning for this was because the image was of a black woman. I chose to respond on-wiki for purposes of record. Note the instances where I am referred to as a "fucker". Note also the complete lack of personal attacks in return. I'll happily forward the emails on if you wish. See User_talk:Migospia/Archive_1#Image:Afropunkvol1.jpeg. Rockpocket 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not doing that racist abuse thing again, are you Rockpocket? *Shaking my head in disappointment* SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (It's a joke!)

C'mon SV, cut me some slack. The folks that upload the animal rights images are way too fair-use savvy, I have to get my kicks somewhere! Rockpocket 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights people are pretty savvy all around. I'm sorry you're finding them so intelligent; I can see that would be awkward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am missing something here? That CD cover fair use is perfectly OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps.. (It's a joke!) was a clue for me. Lsi john 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The fair use template there states that, in addition to that template, one should "add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." I don't see any of those. Admittedly, I'm not totally familiar with fair use claims for compilations, but Betacommand seems to know a fair amount about such things. It was him that added the template. I simply reverted Migospia's deletion of the template because it says "Please do not remove this template; an administrator will review the claim of fair use." That, apparently, is sufficient proof to justify claims of racism. Rockpocket 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And here laid out right in front of you, you will see...hmmm--Migospia☆ 03:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for that image is OK. Only a source is needed. I am sure that it will be easy to find and provide the source. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't mean to be a dick about this but as far as I can see the image clearly doesn't fulfill our legal obligations detailed at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. I was under the impression we should be encouraging the use of {{Non-free media rationale}} for all uploaded non-free images. If I'm wrong here, or are some exempt, then thats fine but then shouldn't we update {{Non-free album cover}} to reflect that, since it suggests album covers must have the detailed rationale. Rockpocket 05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then explain that nicely to the user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

God, how I tried! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the Fair Use policy. As far as I'm concerned, if you - as an admin - accepted her claim then that is fine by me, its not worth getting embroiled in another circular debate with this user. Rockpocket 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Sylvia Browne image...

Please see [[52]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.106.8.208

see here... [53]

I've looked over this user's request and I went ahead and accommodated it. I expect the user to follow the advice left by the both of us, and that there should be no other problems with sourcing in the meantime. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I thought we cleared the Afro-Punk Compilation Record Vol. 1 image it got deleted!--Migospia †♥ 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image deletion

Because the fairuse you cited wasn't extensive enough. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your deletion. A CD cover used on an article about the album depicted does not need more info that the one supplied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jossi, Why don't we complain about this irresponsible behaviour of User:^demon with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges

Huh?

Since when is edit warring not grounds for page protection? Did somebody change the policy while I was not looking? >Radiant< 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts edits does not warrant protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eight, by my count. At any rate, kindly discuss such things beforehand. >Radiant< 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry Radiant. Two editors editwarring and 4 reverts in a few hours are no basis for protection. Ding the involved users if you must. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Deletion Policy

Hi Jossi, The article you deleted on the Politics of J.K. Rowling had numerous citations by legitimate news sources and books. Possibly there were certain statements that may have required citations, however that does not warrant removal of the entire article, especially under a speedied review where few could assess the information. Please restore the content and tag the POV or citations needed. Libertycookies 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion section in NFC

Please don't just shove what you want to into an important policy page without first asking for feedback. It's most unsatisfactory in its current form. Tony 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(a) Tone down your language in this page; (b) Address it that page's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The transclusion on the On the Jews page

You removed the link to this project that I was working on: On the Jews and Their Lies/primary text having "transclusion" in the edit summary. I am not disappointed because I want to follow proper procedure, and you seem to know what the proper procedure is being an admin. I wanted to supply to editors the original text of this document from a public domain work (published in 1920). Is doing this OK or should this be on Meta-Wiki? An electronic document of the German text would be preferable, but one could consult these jpgs. Your advice and assistance would be appreciated. I would like to see the Wiki community having access to this. I have a pdf that includes all 141 jpgs, but the size is a whopping 200 megs.--Drboisclair 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove anything.... It is still there... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you think that it is a good idea?--Drboisclair 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sneaky.jpg

I provided fair use for Image:Sneaky.jpg album cover, but the deletion tag is still there, I just was wondering if you can check the fair use to see if it is acceptable and if the tag still needs to be there because I don't want it to be deleted. BetacommandBot is the one that put the fair use disrupted, I contacted him but he has not gotten back with me, so maybe you can check it out?--Migospia†♥ 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a big discussion about this at WP:NONFREE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About what?--Migospia†♥ 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About CD covers art and fair use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

I am Wjs13, the person who got banned a long time ago for uploading untagged images. I joined wiki because a school which I relate to's page, Saint Ignatius College, South Australia, had un-necessary facts that were constantly being put on - relating Henry Keogh. This has been going on for months now, and I am getting annoyed. I dont think that Henry Keogh was at all notable so why should he be in "Notable Alumini"? I agree that it should be kept on his page and tried to ask the IP user who was putting Keogh's name back on to stop relating Keogh on the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page but she/he can keep it on Keogh's page. I'm getting really annoyed now that its protected with his name all over it. Would you mind lifting the block perhaps, telling me when the block will expire and if the you cant lift the block, please make a few edits and get rid of anything to do with Keogh on the page. Thankyou for your time and sorry if it is a bit annoying, but your basically the most reliable admin I know. Wjs13 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps putting arguments on the discussion page would be more helpful than wholesale deletion of interesting facts. Why is he different to the other alumni on the page? They don't require citations, nor do thousands of other alumni on other school pages, so why single this one out? There are ample references for Henry Keogh attending St. Ignatius. That is not the issue it seems. It certainly doesn't sound like a npov is being adopted in the Henry Keogh case. It seems that the school pages are being used purely for marketing, not for an accumulation of facts. 203.122.236.1 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To be consistent in your interpretation, you should probably clean out all references to where murderers eg, Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski went to school. Some entries detail all schools from kindergarten to university. 203.122.236.1 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection request on Royal Bengal Airline & talk page

Hi, I noticed you reverted page blanking by an anon user on the following:

• Royal Bengal Airline
• Talk:Royal Bengal Airline

I have submitted a semi-protect request (Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection) as I don't believe this will stop. It is likely to do with the fact that there is mention (currently only in the talk page) of a competitors trademark registration. There is no evidence either way as to the details which is why I personally have not incorporated it into the article apart from linking to the UK trademark registry in the EL section. Be grateful for any assitance you can offer. I have exhausted my 3RR count for today so I won't be making any more edits. Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Morrisey blog refs

I see you deleted the references to a blog, but not the material that the references supported. Is that what you meant to do?--SarekOfVulcan 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Any text that is not referenced needs to be removed, but I am not familiar with the subject to be able to do so. If you want, please make recommendations in talk and I will act on these if appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you make an edit for me please?

Can you please erase anything to do with a person called Henry Keogh on the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page. Can you tell me when the protection of the page will finish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.99.142 (talk • contribs)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please restore the information about Henry Keogh on this page. Or at least contribute to the debate on the discussion page so we can understand why you removed interesting information.

For consistency, all the other alumni on the St Ignatius page (and other schools) need to be removed or tagged as unreferenced claims.

Thanks, 203.122.236.1 04:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP, contentious material about living persons are to be excised from articles if not sourced or if poorly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou jossi for doing that. It has been a long debate and I just have to hope that 203.122.236.1 stops doing that, however she has an administrator "friend" who seems to be on her side. Will the page ever be unblocked?

Jossi, I have cited a published book, given links to TV interviews (and transcripts), and links to newspaper reports. What other substantiation do you require? 203.122.236.1 19:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:84.71.192.107 redirect to User talk:Mark bickley

Hi - on Friday you reverted the above redirect and marked the corresponding AN/I thread as resolved. After you did so, the page was again redirected Saturday to User talk:Mark bickley by 84.71.192.107. As a newbie admin, I'm not sure how to proceed since there seems to be no policy about IP talk pages redirected to registered user talk pages.

The two accounts are editing the same articles and I've seen a couple of small overlaps in the IP's contributions and Mark bickley's contributions, but I'm not sure if he's in violation of WP:SOCK because he discloses both accounts with this talk page comment. Is more action required, or should we let it go? Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 00:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense will dictate that IP pages should not be redirected to user pages, but there is no harm in doing so, if he persists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on my talk page

I'm not going to revert again until you answer this: consensus was reached on the talk page to remove the Russian versino of the name. However, Kuban kazak showed up, and not taking consensus into consideration started adding the Russian name without discussing it first. I refuse to change over to his version without discussion. Please post your opinion on my talk page ASAP. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is what should I do? — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the edit summary: [54]. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Very simple: pursue the dispute resolution process we have in place. Start by asking a third opinion or by placing a request for comment. Editwarring only stress you out, and makes you lose your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you help me out though? This isn't the first time Kuban kazak has done something like this. I will do what you said, however I will revert to my version since I'm not close to 3RR yet. Consensus was reached on my version, not his. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Alex. But as you probably have already learned, reverting and getting reverted does not yield any useful results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the article needs to grow, but... maybe it will be a good idea protecting it for now? I don't care whose version you choose to protect. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Made a request on WP:RFP. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-started the discussion below your comment on article's talk page. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms of US Infantry Regiments

Hi-- I really appreciate your vigilance against vandalism, but the changes you reverted to the subject article should not be considered vandalism. I created the page in question (not claiming ownership, of course), and it was soon filled with galleries of things that don't properly have anything to do with "Coats of arms of US Infantry Regiments." It's really great that they're there, though, so I created "Division insignia of the United States Army," "Corps insignia..." etc, to move the galleries to a more appropriate space. I waited a little while to see if it would take, and apparently an anonymous user tried to move them to the proper page last night. Hope you'll understand and let the pages be separate. No content is lost, just reorganized. Thanks!Hammon27 05:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kate and Pete Moss

THAT was quick!! Regards (Sarah777 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Both editors warned?

Thanks for your comments here. Perhaps you'd like to change it to "All editors warned," though, for the sake of clarity. Good friend100 was reverting the actions of 3 or 4 editors, not one. I was adding content today between his reverts, but he wasn't reverting (for the most part) my actions, he was reverting other editors' actions.

Perhaps you'd like to look at the other report of Good friend100 as well, it seems to have been overlooked (a few reports up). I am not editing on that article at all; I had only meant my report to supplement that one, to show a pattern. Anyway, sorry for all the trouble... —LactoseTI^T 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unable to use my account

Hello, My account name is Tapd260, but whenever I try to edit on that account, a dialog box pops up saying that the browser does not know how to handle the file named "index.php." Therefore, I am forced to edit on my IP. I can still access all the settings of my account, though. Do you know a way to fix this problem? -Tapd260 (editing as 69.118.198.115 14:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

What browser are you using? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

File:˜‘.svg Thank you, Jossi, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean

User:Bearcat keeps trying to put a note in the middle of the Michaëlle Jean article, I put the disamb note at top and the user did not seem happy about it. Maybe you can help me out, if the note the user is trying to put in the middle of the article should be there are not.--Migospia†♥ 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Crampton

hi Jossi,

Why did you delete my Robert Crampton article? And why did you do so without first discussing with me?

If the reason was that it was not adequately "sourced" then I suggest you were in error: all of the statements made in the article simply reflected facts (not opinions) stated in The Times newspaper which purports to be the UK paper of record, at least in the eyes of its staff.

99% of the comments in my article in fact related to Crampton's column Beta Male which is his main claim to fame. On Wikipedia you will find numerous articles about books, films, and other media products. Statements about such products, eg that War and Peace is about Russia at the time of the Napoleonic wars, or that Julie Christie stars in Billy Liar, are not supported by sourced references. Those facts are apparent to anyone observing or reading the subject of the article.

If there is some problem peculiar to articles on living people then may I humbly suggest that you simply reinstate the article but under the heading Beta Male rather than Robert Crampton (edited as appropriate). Alternatively you will need to review a large number of articles about books, films, tv programmes in order to be consistent.

I look forward to hearing from you.Dr Spam (MD) 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article based on a request at one of the noticeboards. The article was previously deleted in AfD and keeps being recreated. You can place a request for deletion review at WP:DRV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Systemic Theory

I am owner this publications and have all copyright this 4 publications

Oxford University Press Licence

License Part I 1726011314401

Licensed content author: Jose A Olalde Rangel Licensed content publicaction: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Licensed content: Mar 2,2005 Portion of the article: Abstract

Licence Part II 1726020375846

Licensed content author: Jose A Olalde Rangel Licensed content publicaction: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Licensed content: May 27,2005 Portion of the article: Abstract

Licence Part III 1726020512768

Licensed content author: Jose A Olalde Rangel Licensed content publicaction: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Licensed content: Aug 20,2005 Portion of the article: Abstract

Licence Part IV 1726010772062

Licensed content author: Jose A Olalde Rangel Licensed content publicaction: Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Licensed content: Dec,2005 Portion of the article: Abstract

Thank You

I need information about publish this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaptogeno (talk • contribs)

Unless the material was published in a secondary, published source, the concept cannot be included in Wikipedia. You may want to read our policies in this regard: WP:NOR and WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Podilsko-Voskresenska Line

Hi Jossi. I'm currently mediating a debate about this article (link), and since it doesn't appear to me that the debate will end any time soon, would it be possible for he protection of the page to either be extended, or for you to assist in clearing up the matter? Thanks, - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection will expire on June 17, 2007. You have plenty of time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Celtic templates

Hi Jossi, I would actually prefer that we have the culture section uncollapsed and the mythology section collapsed on some of the articles. I purposely did them that way on the Gaelic Festivals, for example, because I think the festivals are more about culture than mythology. I think it's worth having both templates there, but I'd prefer them to be the way I put them there initially. Thoughts? - Kathryn NicDhà na ♫♦♫ 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just set uncollapsed|collapsed as a parameter to the template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll go fiddle with them now. :-) - Kathryn NicDhà na ♫♦♫ 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiddle away.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

Thanks for your edits to Joel Hayward. The material that you removed is exactly what I would have excised, but I wanted to make sure my concerns had the backing of others. Glad you concur with my perspective. No reply necessary. Groupthink 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on that article for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's on my watchlist. I've already made one request for semi-prot, and if the NPOV nonsense keeps up, I'll ask for perm semi-prot. Groupthink

Reply

I started going through your contributions because I found mistakes, unreferenced claims, spelling and grammatical mistakes. I don't like using "random article" and prefer to go through existing lists. I deleted the "reviews" of a book because they could be found elsewhere and are not needed in the article. They make the article read like an advertising blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Lazauskas (talk • contribs)

I see that other editors have alerted you relating to your overuse of tagging, and deletion of material without discussion. These actions are not a good idea. I appreciate your attempt to fix articles, but I would also appreciate that if you have specific concerns that you address these in talk rather than act unilaterally, in particular with deletion of materials. As for unreferenced tags, use these judiciously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "judiciously"? If I see claims requiring references, I tag them. If I delete material, I usually note my reasons. That's the way it works in practice on wiki. In theory, it may work in other ways ;-) Leo 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

The subject of this article has continued to complain about theis article. Unfortunately, this has led to people taking out the sourced controversial information - however, his only claim to fame is the very thing he wants removed from the article, so that this now fits a7. I would ask that you delete this article altogether, as he seems to have requested on the talk page. Thanks. PS. Should I say something at ANI as well, or the talk page of the big guy? The Evil Spartan 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Modus operandi

Putting a name to the problem. [55] --Justanother 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Martin Ingram

This is in response to your comment at the ANI thread. You were suggesting a merge into another article... can you point to one you think might be appropriate? I've thought about that as a solution, but I haven't been able to come up with a single article that would work, nor in fact any article where it would be appropriate to go into the circumstances under which Ingram left the LAPD. Mangojuice^talk 17:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just merge a summary of that article into one of the articles. But I understand your concern and would be happy to support the removal of that article altogether. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear god please unblock Isotope

He was reverting a banned user. Please see the history of the AN3RR board, where this user was repeatedly denied this 3RR request, and has been revert warring. I might ask you to perhaps block the 87.122.0.0/16 range as well, as he's been used it multiple times. The Evil Spartan 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe Jossi blocked Isotope. Isotope doesn't appear to be blocked, but the numeric IP was. Lsi john 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope has never been blocked that I can find[56] KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect jossi's AN3RR block comment was unclear, as it did not indicate that the reporting editor (ip) was the one that got blocked. Lsi john 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you're my last hope

I have been trying for weeks to get the abuses of User:Libertycookies to the attention of admins, but they keep passing the buck, and now as a result the guy feels vindicated. But he has completely destroyed the JK Rowling article by transforming it into his own personal essay on her supposed political views. I don't know what to do. Every request for aid I've given has been turned down. I don't know why. This guy has flagrantly violated every single Wikipedia rule, and unless he is permanently banned, he will continue to deface biographical articles. Please, I beg you, if you indeed care about the integrity of Wikipedia, do something about this guy. Serendipodous 09:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be busy most of today, but I will surely take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a stand on this. I cannot express how much I appreciate finally being able to threaten sanction. If you don't mind, could you quickly overview the request for arbitration (dead in the water) and the request for mediation (ongoing) over this issue? Thank you ever so much.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#JK Rowling
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/J. K. Rowling

Serendipodous 16:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the case has been rejected, Liberty is sure to see this as a blank cheque to continue his OR. Please ensure that he understands that the prohibition against his OR still stands. Thank you. Serendipodous 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, please review the content that you deleted. While your deletion of the article Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling may have been warranted due to lack of citations, the current delete was well sourced and did not include any OR. Although you may know Seren as a good editor, he has taken a personal dislike to anything that I do and has engaged in systematically defaming my reputation. The reality is that J.K. Rowling has political influences and explores political themes in her books. If you are unable to see that your delete was unwarranted in this instance I will make a request for Deletion Review. Libertycookies 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Go and complete the mediation process. That would be the best course of action at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please could you review Libertycookies most recent revision of JK Rowling and see if it qualifies him for blocking. I am in no position to be objective. Serendipodous 12:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Mediation was denied, and although I am now trying to put Seren's attacks behind me and work towards an article that includes what has been describes as "obvious" by a Rowling interviewer and "autobiographical" by Rowling, Seren seems unable to return to an objective state of mind to find a compromise. Maybe you will revist your last delete of sourced material that had the more offensive POV material removed? Libertycookies 14:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo

I think we crossed over one another...I blocked Tigeroo, and left a message on his page, and was just heading back to AN3 to note it. Well, then I saw yours! (Neither one of our messages is showing up on his talk, that may explain why you didn't see mine.) So...I guess the question is, what do we do now? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. we crossed paths. Keep the block and let the user contest it if he wants. At that time a third opinion will be given by another admin. Be well.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do that then. I'd ordinarily let a first one go too, but he'd had some previous warnings that were on his talk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OR question

Hi Jossi, I mean this question in good faith, so please don't get mad. On the Politics of JK Rowling draft #1:

Rowling says that her heroine is Jessica Mitford and gave her book Hons and Rebels to her daughter, who was named Jessica in homage to Mitford. Hons and Rebels was an autobiographical account of Mitford's childhood in the early 1930's and the household conflicts with her sisters Unity and Diana, who were ardant supporters of Nazism. Diana eventually married the leader of the British Union of Fascists in Nazi Germany with Hitler in attendance. Jessica Mitford was a supporter of civil rights, class equity, and Communism, eventually running off "to fight with the Reds" in the Spanish Civil War. Writer John Rose suggested that Dobby was named after the person who introduced Mitford to the Communist Party USA later in her life.

I think you are suggesting that it is an example of WP:ORSynthesis of published material serving to advance a position...that is, Facts A + B = Position C. Facts A + B are well documented and are merely summarized here, so that doesn't seem to be original material. There is no position 'C' that is specifically being made, these are just related facts. This situation doesn't seem defined in the WP:OR as being objectionable, can you refer the question to another admin for a second opinion? And if Facts A + B = (a possible inferable Position C) is indeed WP:OR, can you add that to the OR definition? Sorry, but I've assumed that this was okay since it wasn't spelled out as wrong.

Also, if A+B=(inferable C) is illegal, can I say "her heroine is civil-rights activist Jessica Mitford," or "self-described muckraker Jessica Mitford," or any other documented descriptives of who the person Jessica Mitford is without being WP:OR? Libertycookies 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"her heroine is civil-rights activist Jessica Mitford" would be OK, if that characterization (heroine) is described in a reliable source. Let the reader explore Jessica Mitford, if they want to know more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

been on for a while

Hi Jossi. Thanks for the info in my talk, but I've actually been on wikipedia for a while (since March 2006 as my user contribution will confirm). (RookZERO 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

... oops... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Just to let you know that Anynobody (AN) is trying to smear you on AN/I by means of an out-of-context quote. That is what Sandbox3 is by the way, a big collection of out-of-context material presented to smear me. That is what I love about AN; he always proves my points for me. --Justanother 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

protect

Jossi,

Could you full-protect Evangeline Williamson for a bit? It seems there is a full blown edit war between two new accounts and an anon IP account.

As far as I can tell, the last 'stable version' was the last edit by migsopia.

I've posted a request on the AN protection page.

-john

Please place a request for protection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to get back here in time. I had already done that. And the other admin came back and reprotected. Sorry.. / thanks.! Lsi john 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

((helpme)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.42.136 (talk • contribs)

Link to meta

Since we cannot find a link to meta user page on your user page here, following the rule on m:Board elections/2007/Endorsements/en, the endorsements submitted by a certain meta user will be removed due to lack of identity proof. Just for your information. --Aphaia 05:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I will add a link to my meta page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Hi! During the recent AfD discussion about the article Carl Hewitt you expressed some concerns about the article, and suggested that it needed to be rewritten. I have undertaken a substantial rewrite of the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised by you and other editors, and would appreciate it if you could look over the current state of the article to see if you have any suggestions for further improvement. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There. I think that's fixed it...

The Mystery of the Druids HalfShadow 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are still a little borked, original talk page is at Talk:YЯ∃TERY SDIUIDS still. Kesac 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Fixed now)

Fixing a redirect seems to be a major pain in the ass. Am I doing something wrong, or is it something only an admin can really fix properly? HalfShadow 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted and moved the text. It can be done differently, but the talk page was pretty short. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cary Grant

What are you talking about? cary grant is ENGLISH and he is JEWISH so no i did not vandleize look it up on the internet about carey grant's religion and nationality. --Tweetsabird 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics of JK Rowling

Hi Jossi, Is the entry too long? How about a spin off article, since issues of civil rights are obviously of great importance to Rowling, and some sections of Harry Potter are fairly autobiographical? Thanks Libertycookies 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add to Harry Potter, and if it becomes to large we could consider a spinoff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is your position on the politics section? Why did you remove it yesterday only to give Liberty the green card to re-add the section? — Dorvaq (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I'm assuming that you don't have a position other than making sure that the information is accurate and properly sourced. I'm going to add the info back in and if anything needs additional citation, please mark up. Thanks, 75.43.98.26 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about citations or the lack of them. See my comments in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just when I thought this had been resolved he sparks up again. I don't know what else anybody can do to explain to Libertycookies why his content is inappropriate and in blatant violation of so many policies. Surely it's time for a final reversion and a 24-hour ban? AulaTPN 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP nutshell

The nutshell is a summary of the whole policy. BLP clearly states that violating content will be removed from an article or the article deleted. Could you explain how you think I'm changing the policy or misrepresenting it? violet/riga (t) 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that, Violetriga. Just that as the policy page has been stable for a long time, it would be better to discuss that addition to the nutshell on talk. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a change to the policy, not a change of wording, and doesn't misrepresent the policy why does it need discussing? It is an important part of the page that is not covered by the nutshell when it should be. If you don't personally have a problem with it you shouldn't remove it. violet/riga (t) 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Violating content can be removed and articles deleted' is poor English and not exactly correct. You could propose the wording in talk, and other editors can chip in to ensure that it reads well and it is an accurate summary of the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't poor English at all other than being a fragmented sentence. I also fail to see how it isn't "exactly correct". Content that violates BLP can be removed and articles that violate BLP can be deleted. It doesn't need to go into the hows and whys because it is a summary. violet/riga (t) 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to continue the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Addition_to_nutshell. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mariam83

Out of curiousity, why did you revert me? --Evilclown93_(talk) 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk, blanked by same user, should be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proxy warrior

User:Error1010 has picked up where he left off after the 3RR report. Can you just semi-protect all controversial Islam-related articles for a while? This is really going too far. Arrow740 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the similarities. Also please inform me where your fair use policy allows you to make such extensive quotes such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_persecution_by_Muslims&diff=140212392&oldid=140212220 Error1010 00:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for the checkuser result before making any further comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever that is, you can still comment on the fair use stuff. Error1010 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here it is: do not editwar. Reverting other editors accomplishes absolutely nothing, besides getting blocked. Some advise? read User:Durova/The_dark_side. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For our policy of fair use, read WP:FAIR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I still insist that those large quotes are in contradiction of your fair use policy here.It says that "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article." The guideline for the text states that "extensive quotation" is not allowed. As an admin here I believe it is your duty to uphold that instead of dismissing my edit in such a manner. Please review the edit accordingly. Thanks again. Error1010 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss with editors in talk, and reach consensus on the appropriateness or lack thereof of such quotes. As admins, we do not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Error1010, User:Protectpeople and User:Evenpaint are sockpuppets of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Error1010 is already blocked, and the other two will be blocked next if they persist. They are using Tor to edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Riana already took care of this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Two more: User:Charmradio, User:Keptauto; possibly also User:Shipslucky.Proabivouac 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that but it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to have a discussion when I am dealing with this. Error1010 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Be patient and pursue WP:DR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Racisim and personal attacks

Jossi, as I said on the page I can appreciate the comment you made on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article; however, feeding this troll does nothing but encourage him/her to continue his attacks. Please look at his edit here[57]. There is no call for this type of attack and you giving this twit any support result in just this type of attack. Yes, I am a bit ticked; I take supported stupidity personally and this editor does nothing but seek to be offended where no offense was intended. I have know in your past edits and respect you. I hope that you can take this editor under your wing and at least get him to understand what an offense really is. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On WP:ANI

An action you took is the subject of an item I have entered on WP:ANI. patsw 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Pages

Dear Jossi,

Thanks for your posting on the Sahaj Marg page. I am writing for advice. This morning, after two weeks of discussing issues on the talk page and after receiving encouragement from two editors, I re-organized and edited some of the Sahaj Marg page. Someone named Shashwat Pandey has reverted it back to his original at least 9 times today. One other editor tried to revert it to my edits because he agreed we needed to make progress on this (Sfacets) and Shashwat reverted on him twice. It seems that Shashwat thinks he is the only one who can make edits and then he tells everyone to be patient because he's already in mediation with another editor (and I left the texts he was disputing in that mediation, namely, the teachings of Sahaj Marg).

I also made a one paragraph edit on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page this morning and didn't look at it until just now (it's 9:10 pm where I live) and was shocked to see that Shashwat had immediately reverted that too! It seems that if he doesn't make the edits, even after others agree, he simply reverts, tells them to be patient, and refuses to accept any compromises or negotiation.

I searched the Wiki policy and tried to give him a warning for vandalism and he personally attacked me on the talk page. I also tried to report him for the 3-r, but the pages and policies are confusing, so I don't know if I'm doing it right.

I notice in reading Shashwat Pandey's homepage discussion, that he has been brought up for numerous violations and is currently in mediation. Also, he has received notices for reverting people's edits before.

Is there something that can be done? Is there a way to put a moratorium on his reversions until we get other feedback and can move forward? He's had repeated flagrant violations; This is a long-standing issue that has been a problem with many editors (see his discussion page please).

Thanks, Renee --Renee 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see that admin User:Riana has already blocked this editor for violating 3RR. If he continues, the user will be blocked again for longer periods, so hopefully he/she will get the message that editwarring is not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll at verifiablity

Hi Jossi, could you please look over again what I was suggesting. I wasn't trying to poll an edit, I was simply trying to see where people were on what it was they wanted to add (and where). I specifically said don't vote yet, but was just trying to get ideas about how to go about it (We're all over the place, what to add and where to add it). Before it was closed I replied to SlimV, "Surely we can poll to decide what people would like to change and where they would like to change it? I'm not even suggesting yet what the actual words are, but what ever they turn out to be ecxactly (sic), we need to be able focus on exactly what it is we want to do." Can't we at least do that? R. Baley 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, straw polls do not work. They may work after a vigorous debate has taken place. So, discuss, present arguments, listen to others' arguments, etc. That will be much better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading your answer, I'm a little confused. This was not a poll yet (or maybe ever). I specifically was trying to outline the various positions I had seen and get people to discuss them. I also asked for comment on the wording because I didn't know if it was inclusive or ultimately necessary (I would have removed it myself if the comments had indicated that people were happy with the way the discussion(s) was(were) going.

Part of the problem as I see it is that about 10 editors tried to amend WP:RS. We were told that it was obsolete/discredited and not worth modifying and to go to WP:V. At WP:V we're told that this isn't the place to make those kinds of additions (I agreed that it wasn't the place, and also with the essay you linked to, but witheld comment because those making the suggestion seemed more experienced with these policies). So now there are two multiple discussions about the same topic in two seperate places trying to decide what to add (if anything), where to add it (if anywhere), and how to word it (if we could agree to make the addition). So the "poll" was designed to jumpstart the discussion on "where" or "if (to add anything)," not on content. I also agree that polls may work after vigorous debate, but that was the proposal, vigorous debate, discussion -not the poll itself. Which is why I am confused. Sorry this is so long winded (and that you and SlimV seemed to have drawn the short straw for thankless jobs :-) I'm not trying to get the section re-instated at this point, I just wanted to clarify my intention. R. Baley 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Re your revert: If peer-review has no special status -- as we are being told at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability -- they why hide the fact? Shouldn't we be open about what the policies really are? Raymond Arritt 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that. What I am saying with that revert is that WP:V is official policy, and if you want to add to that page, discuss in talk, gain consensus and them make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review Sahaj Marg page

Dear Jossi,

Since I have posted my edits and a few messages on the talk page, to get a discussion going about any further edits, Shashwat Pandey has gone in and made SIX unilateral edits over a matter of just one hour, WITHOUT any discussion on the talk page.

I request that he be blocked for a week or so, so that those who want to discuss the matter can review the changes and talk about them.

He seems to see the Sahaj Marg page as his page, and that only he has the right to edit. Also, he has a clear negative point-of-view and keeps trying to promote the group as a cult, when in my POV it is just a meditation group.

Help is appreciated.

Renee --Renee 08:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, should the page be protected at this point? Lots of fighting going on at this point. Riana (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, people seem to be edging towards the talkpage and your ideas now :) Riana (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point I believe a stub will do nicely. That page is a total disaster as it stands. If the stub gets reverted, we may need to protect at that stage. One step at a time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on Wiki Procedures

Dear Jossi,

Sorry to bring you into this again, but Shashwat Pandey is posting flagrant POV edits on the Sahaj Marg page now, some are completely slanderous and unethical.

Specifically, he just changed one line to read: The goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is to become one with divine, represented by the leader involved in various criminal/acts of violence and forgery activities.

This is the stuff of conspiracy theories (and from blogs). There have been court cases in India, including one pending one, but all of the previous court cases have ruled in favor of the current group and all allegations have been proven to be fraudulent. There is absolutely no proof of any of this.

Further, he will stop at nothing to promote his POV (please see his blog, http://www.geocities.com/sha211_211/srcm.html, especially at the end in red, which help reveal his motivations).

Another example is the very first line. Other editors and I had agreed on a simple statement of, "Sahaj Marg is a meditation system." He just changed it to read, "Sahaj Marg is a system of obedience to its leader."

So, what can I do, procedurally, when outrageous and unsupported statements are repeatedly made, without consultation on the talk board, and that fly in the face of what all the other editors have agreed?

Help!!! I don't know what to do but I'd like to follow Wiki procedures. Can he be banned?

Renee --Renee 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I believe that Einstein 22, who also appears on this page, is either a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet. (He said he was Shashwat's roommate.) Please see this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Einstein_22&oldid=136395516 If Shashwat asked him to help he'd be a meatpuppet, yes?

Hi there

Is the new draft at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation OK with you? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Tim Vickers 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to close th Wikipedians by religion CFD discussion as Delete

Hello. I believe this was closed in error and against a demonstrable rough consensus to keep, ignoring valid argument for keeping the categories. Thus, I have requested a DRV at: [58].--Ramdrake 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of catgeories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that is a neutral and useful category that can help the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Two supercategories where the same arguments have been made are the language category (closed as keep, currently under DRV), and political ideology (closed as delete, currently under DRV), so with all due respect, I fail to see any established precedent. The arguments have been made, but they have been refuted by numerous editors in the community. There is at this time no consensus to delete, that I'm aware of.--Ramdrake 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My view is that there is. You may disagree, so that is what DRV is for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We then politely agree to disagree. Let's see what the DRV gives.--Ramdrake 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that your view was not disclosed and discussed, you referred to a consensus without citing where one can find it, gave a vague reference to some sort of precedent, and you appeared to have cast an imperious super-vote rather than followed the actual consensus in the specific UCFD objectively.

On the merits of Keep and Delete, no one even attempted answered many of Keep arguments. If you have a view that should be advanced as the consensus you should disclose it and let it be discussed editor-to-editor rather than having it appear at the close as some sort of powerful admin deus ex machina. patsw 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, that was the right move, and long overdue.Proabivouac 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis." Jossi, if you don't mind me asking, how can that line be taken as anything but a declaration that you ignored consensus in that specific cfd, and rather chose to base it on your perception of precedent? I mean, if you state it was for specific reasons, and those reasons are entirely disconnected from the cfd, doesn't that mean you're admitting that you didn't really use the cfd as the basis for the close? (And, as such, wasn't the statement, "The result of the debate was Delete" inherently false? Bladestorm 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bladestorm. When I close xfDs I review the arguments made in the context of prevailing consensus and Wikipedia policy: xfD's are not !votes. In any case, in this specific case, the "keep" votes where not dismissed, as "Wikipedians interested in XXX" categories can be used to address the "keep" comments. So, for me it was an easy thing to close this with a "delete" as the consensus between the keep and delete comments can be synthesized in the alternative method of categorizing users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't have implied a "rename", rather than a "delete" to you? I'm willing to assume that you simply summarized your actions incorrectly, but, push-comes-to-shove, the result of the debate itself was unambiguously not to "delete". Yes, I realize that they aren't votes. (Though I think your statement that they're not !votes is a double-negative, asserting that they are votes. Yeah, I know, I'm annoying) But anyways, when the vast majority (votes, !votes, whatever) was explicitly opposed to deletion, at the very least, you probably should have kept your rationale confined solely to the case at hand, rather than imply that it was done to follow previous precedents. Or not. In any event, my comment is as much about the explanation as the action itself. Either way, I'll not pester you further. :) Bladestorm 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are valid, Bladestorm. I may have assumed that people would have understood and I should maybe have made it clearer. As you know, you cannot "rename" categories. You can only delete them and then re-create new categories. There is a difference between a "Muslim Wikipedian" and a "Wikipedian interested in Islam", so even if we create these new categories, users need to chose if to self-categorize under the new categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support your decision. Beit Or 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Enterprise

Template:Enterprise has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —AldeBaer (c) 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you agreed to the deletion. Sorry for just nominating it though, could've done a bit more looking around beforehand, and maybe I should've asked you what you think first. —AldeBaer (c) 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee, and personal attack/defamation

Hi Jossi,

I have noticed recently that Renee is approaching various admins with request to block me without citing any valid reason, however i have also noticed that she even tried to interfear with mediation process, by asking the mediator to ban me !!

I had repeatedly tried to convince her that this page is under mediation and no major changes should be done while this process is underway, but insted of waiting to let the mediation process get over, she/he (?) changed the complete page and disturbed the process.

Moreover, she is even connicting me with a friend of mine who is well versed with wiki policy but is not very much involved.

It seems her one point agenda is to get me banned, this is against wiki policy to supress any POV, also i have serious doubt about her being new to wiki, as i have many times observed similar behaviour in past, by various user names also.

For your reference kindly see these comments by her/him.

1. [59] She contacted another admin who banned me just by reading her POV, without even asking for my POV.

2.[60] here she directly approached the mediator and asked him to block me!!

3. [61] i tried to convince her for not making any major changes in the page as it is under mediation.

4. She is putting false and factually incorrect information in the page to establish a POV such as this [62] case is still pending and claim is it is in favor of one group !!

5. Note this [63] Sahaj Marg is not an organization put for POV push she/he mentioned that it was registered as organization.

6. Kindly note religious claims which she is representing as fact's like in case of connection with God etc, they are just claims and cannot be stated as fact in any neutral article.

7. There are many more cases like this [64] when i was out of town, i asked one of my friend to get involved in this article, which was not at all hidden, he even exposed his name etc to renee even after that just to get me banned she is making such absured claims.

8. Kindly make sure any other admin is not influenced by her false propaganda against me, like the case was with Riana.

9. Does this qualifies as personal attack ? if yes what is the next step. I have even tried to convince her/him about validity of difference of openion on wiki [65] but i feel this will not have any effect on her, as her one point agenda seems to be to get me banned so that false and incorrect information such as pointed above can be placed without any discussion.

10. How can you help in getting her quite till mediation process is not complete ?--Shashwat pandey 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note [66] when she tried to put a block on me, without signing her name, and then shusequently she tried to protray as is that message was from someone else [67] here she had stated Please note that you are receiving a vandalism warning for your immediate reversions to your original page what would you call such a behaviour ? if this qualifies with personal attack policy of WIKI, what are the steps that i can initiate ?

Thanks in advance--Shashwat pandey 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please address this with the mediator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I feel renee [68] has seriously violated WP:NPA by trying to connect me with a blog on internet, this in my view is a clear case of attempt to expose a person's identity, and was done with same intention, as there is/was no referene to any blog on my user page ever.

Even if i am not the owner of that blog, people may take this as truth and my personal safety is direct under threat!! This act, of connecting me with a blog, which is so much against one group, may put me in serious threat for personal safety. I feel renee is suitable to be banned for a longer duration of time, according to stated policy at WP:NPA

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery

Expect your kind co-operation. --Shashwat pandey 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did he expose your identity? Please provide a diff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The blog that she is trying to connect me with [69] here on your talk page itself, same has been repeated at talk page of various other admin's as well.

Connecting someone, with an blog on internet even if this is not be true, may put me in serious trouble!! intention of connecting a wiki user with a blog on internet is only exposing the user's identity only!! this is a serious act --Shashwat pandey 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You sign with the name Shashwat Pandey, and that blog is also signed with that name. If you are not the same person, simply request a user name change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The intention of the user, is/was clearly to somehow expose my identity, and this is a clear case of violation of WP:NPA, what is present on your talk page same is present on many admin's talk page as well, i am simply putting my side to all the user's where she had approchaed and made personal attack on me.

Intention of the user is to expose my identity only, and also to defame me, also her communication with mediator is also not a sign of act of good faith! she tried to influence the mediation process.--Shashwat pandey 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly see this [70] a page is marked for deleation, and renee is talking about me, if you closely observer this person's actions in last few day's, you will easily notice that this person has only one point agenda and that is to defame me, i have a POV and keeping in view wiki policy of NPOV i express that, this is what is essence of wiki is. but talking more about another user then edits or contents of an article is a clear case violation of WP:NPA what can be done about this ? --Shashwat pandey 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration for Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission Pages

Dear Jossi,

Please, would you reconsider your decision to withdraw from the Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission boards? They have been a mess for years now and we need your guidance. Here are my reasons for this request:

1. Mediation is ongoing between Shashwat Pandey and another editor only. They are discussing long portions of text that are not verifiable by a third source, so it seems unlikely that the result of their mediation would appear in the final article.

2. I and the other editors are not involved in any mediation and are trying to move forward with your suggestions of a stub and merger, in line with Wiki policies (see the Sahaj Marg talk page).

3. Shashwat Pandey has a long-standing history of point-of-view abuse that is documented on his user page and elsewhere by multiple editors. I gathered this evidence from multiple Wiki sites and information accessed through Wiki links (i.e., his user page, links to blogs with his name on them posted on articles he edited, perusing other editors’ complaints about him). Following Wiki policy, I provided this evidence to various administrators involved in the pages so that we could move forward and get the articles in suitable Wiki format without his disruption.

4. It seems slightly manipulative of Mr. Pandey to cry foul about being “exposed personally” when he himself posted this information on Wikipedia. He is trying to make it like he was personally attacked when the pattern of evidence with multiple editors shows the same disruptiveness (and I provided him notice that I was filing complaints for his abuse).

5. The facts remain that these pages are a mess. Mr. Pandey has been an extremely disruptive editor with a stated agenda to promote an anti-Sahaj Marg point-of-view. It’s my understanding that editors like this are banned from Wiki if evidence is provided, which I did in my complaints.

6. To move forward, I like your idea of doing a stub and then if suitable, mediate on that or given the past history of this article, go to arbitration on that. I would be happy to participate in either.

Given the past history of these articles (please, please peruse the archives) it’s important to have truly neutral persons like yourself remain on the site to act as a monitor if people fall outside of Wiki guidelines. This board desperately needs neutral persons like yourself or nothing will change. I greatly appreciate your voice on this page.

Sincerely, Renee Renee 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

I don't think Jossi has abandoned the project, he has just pulled back for a while to allow Vassyana to go ahead with the mediation. He is also taking a few days off. I am not sure who locked the page, but it doesn't matter. We can continue to discuss here good ways to improve the article. I entirely agree with Jossi that with no objective references you will be left with a stub, and you might need to merge the two articles to have enough verifiable facts even for that. I am certainly not buying into the dispute (though from personal experience I understand how frustrating it can be) but if you want to keep talking and thinking about it, let's do that! Let's assume that Wiki rules and good sense will prevail. Rumiton 10:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the message and heads up. Please don't be shy about discussing the article on its talk page. Just because parties are undergoing mediation does not mean you shouldn't participate in discussions. It may be helpful if you refrain from making big changes and if you avoid bending the rules, even when appropriate (not saying you've planned on either). Otherwise, I don't see any problem with you being active in discussion and offering your opinion in an effort to reach consensus & improve Wikipedia. Thanks again for the message, it is sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Jossi/Archives. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 07:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Unreferenced articles

A thread starts here [71] with the comment "A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?" by "Jossi Fresco" it begins with an unfair assessment of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles as an assumption. Are you the author? Jeepday (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The initial userbox for the project spoke of "eliminating unreferenced articles". At that time my view was that the project should concentrate in finding sources for unreferenced articles, rather than eliminating them. I see that this is now the emphasis, so all is well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I see where the misunderstanding could have come from. The goal is (and always has been) to reference all articles thereby eliminating them from the Category:Articles lacking sources because then they would be referenced. Lesson learned, "be sure the project scope statements are clear". Jeepday (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike-through text

Your input would be appreciated

Any further sources for Laozi? ;o) Any advice, contributions, sources or any other help would be appreciated in building a "guru" section for Eastern religion and improving the article overall. Cheers! Vassyana 18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it in the next few days. Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hey Jossi. Please make sure to hardblock open proxies. I just found a banned user using this one with CheckUser. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Will do... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership forking

Hi Jossi. On following up your post on my talk page, I created ownership fork proposal. Given your involvement in this matter, I thought I would give you first crack at reviewing and revising the proposal before opening it up to everyone. I certainly would appreciate any revisions you might have to the proposal. If you have comments about the proposal, please post them on my talk page for now. Thanks! Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kamil Idris

I have seen that you were member of the WikiProject Biography. Would you have time to review the article on Kamil Idris, who is the current head of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN organization? A recent edit by an IP address in Switzerland (the WIPO is in Switzerland, thus this may indicate a conflict of interest) deleted a complete section without comment. I have expanded the article to add more references. Thanks in advance for any help. --Edcolins 16:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I commented in article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for all the hard work you do Jossi, a barn star would be redundant, but do know your efforts are very much appreciated. KOS | talk 03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

praise for you

hi jossi,

i have checked your contributions those are excellent and i hope i can see you as an administrator soon.Chennadi 11:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am already an administrator... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Email :)

Email for you FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg page

Dear Jossi,

Thanks for your work on the Sahaj Marg page. I am wondering how we keep the Sahaj Marg stub intact? Rumiton suggested putting a box at the top cautioning people about changes. This might work but given the passion of some editors it might take daily vigilance to keep it clean. Another idea is to protect it, with a mechanism for changing it (something like, "This page is protected yet open for improvement. Please discuss suggestions on the talk page and they will be discussed/considered once weekly [or monthly]"). Would this be reasonable?

Advice is appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I'm posting this message on Vassyana's page too, per Rumiton's suggestion to contact both of you.

Contact

Jossi, please contact me by email. I'ld like to ask for a little technical help.--Rainer P. 11:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure... but I do not have your email. Please email me . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you got my email?--Rainer P. 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Have you got my email? Sorry, I have been trying for a while, and I find no response.--Rainer P. 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay Ants

I just wanted you to know I replaced your prod tag with a CSD for an attack page. Reading the context of the page, it's pretty evidently this was an attack on the person mentioned in the article. Wildthing61476 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will speedy delete it, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi there, thanks for your comments on the talk page, do you have an opinion on which of these proposed additions is preferable? Tim Vickers 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that maybe we are splitting hairs, yet again. I would prefer shorter, concise, and accurate wording and to avoid attempts to drive policy formulation based on exceptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission page

HI Jossi,

When will a decision be made about whether or not this page is deleted?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 07:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaun Wilson page

Hi Jossi,

Regarding the corrections you have on my "Shaun Wilson" page, I want to first of all clarify that I am definitely not Shaun Wilson!

The references I have used as supporting quotes are carefully used from in-print and electronic sources and have therefore not made, as you claim, generic references.

I take pride and care to use this site as an accurate listing of Wilson's work, updating it regularly, and request that the tags now listed on my page be removed.

thanks

- Doug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug church (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification, in WP we assume good faith. Please note that the article as it is, reads very much as an resume or autobiography. We need inline sources for the claims made (see WP:CITE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my claim that you may be Mr. Wilson, is because of these images: Image:Shaun_Wilson_image-24.jpg, Image:Shaun_Wilson_image-14.jpg, Image:Shaun_Wilson_image-15.jpg, that were uploaded by you under the {{PD-self}} license of "own work" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

- Jossi, thanks for highlighting the copyright issue on images, was an oversight on my behalf, will amend the clearance. Need advice, do I contact Shaun and ask him for permission to use the works (he sent me the images for upload) as I did before or should I list these images as another source, if so, what? Further, what changes do you recommend? deletion of screenings and bibliography etc? - DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug church (talk • contribs)

You will need a statement from the author that he allows these images to be placed in the public domain under the WP:GFDL. Post his agreement to that effect in the talk page of these images, and change the license to GFDL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the biography, reduce the article to main notable aspects only, summarize the curriculum, and make it short, sweet, and interesting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Please read WP:V where it says "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed". It is not appropriate for you to re-add unsourced material without finding a citation. While you may hold different opinions, that is how the policy is.

You can suggest a change at WT:V, but please don't just override it unilaterally. I worked hard to make the article in line with the verifiability policy, and I listed the unsourced ones on the talk page for people to source. They do not belong in the article, please remove them. Until(1 == 2) 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to first understand the spirit of the policy before applying it indiscriminately. We are here to build an encyclopedia, many users anons and registered, add content on a second by second basis. Other editors improve upon these additions. If sources are not provided look for them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is to prevent inaccurate information from entering the encyclopedia. The burden of providing citations is on the person seeking to include the information. I spent the whole morning gathering citations for several entries. I also posted the others on the talk page for others to find and cite. I am not destroying anything, I am removing it from our article space where it should not be once challenged. Once challenged it does not belong in the article and as an admin you should know that. Until(1 == 2) 03:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been editing Wikipedia for a few weeks. Don't you think that you should maybe listen to experienced editors before you interpret policy? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You found some unsourced text. Great. Mark it as unreferenced using {{fact}}, and leave it for a few weeks. If no one adds a source, you can remove it. Better still, look for references so that the text can remain. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to have it explained to me how I am incorrect in my interpretation of policy. My experience on Wikipedia not the issue here. If I have made a specific mistake please address that, but that last comment was rather vague in its criticism. As for the FACT tag, I posted a {{unreferenced}} tag and made a post on the talk page. {{fact}} is an option, but not a requirement. Until(1 == 2) 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop repeating your request that I "look for references", I added 19 this morning. Until(1 == 2) 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you need to stop deleting material just because there is no source. Tag it as such and 'wait a few weeks before deleting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change the verifiability policy then go to WT:V, but don't ask me to follow some rules that you seem to just be arbitrarily applying to me. What policy am I violating? Guideline? Manual of style? Discussion based consensus? Where is it shown that I am acting wrong? I have shown that policy supports me, but all I have gotten back is insistent requests without basis in policy. Until(1 == 2) 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, look, you are certainly mistaken, and that may be because you just started editing Wikipedia. You can ask other editors if you do not accept what you say is my opinion. You are not violating policy, you are demonstrating a behavior that is explained here:WP:POINT and WP:LAWYER ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those policies imply bad faith on my part, that is not the case. Also, please stop referring to my experience, it is really not relevant, and you really don't know enough about the subject to make an accurate judgment. You keep saying I am mistaken, but have not explained how. Instead of just arguing back and forth I have proposed a policy change to reflect what I am being told by the community: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposed_policy_changes. Please assume good faith with me, I am tired of being accused of bad faith, it is just not so, I have taken every effort to follow the rules here, it is just that the rules do not reflect what is expected of me. Until(1 == 2) 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I will refer to your experience, when I see that you may be missing the point. Wikipedia is a community, not a set of rules. Many of its practices get reflected in policy after a while (that is the way that policy is developed) but some may take time to make it into policy, if at all. That is why is better to asks questions and refer to more experienced editors for advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on talking about me as a person, instead of discussing the policy/content dispute I will stick to more public venues on this matter. Until(1 == 2) 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

John Kanzius, ie, salt water into fuel

The process is genuine. Radio Frequency does break down salt water (the actual Frequency is never mentioned, AM, FM, ShortWave, etc). What is in contention is the economic viability of this process, does it require MORE energy to break the water down than can be regained later via a direct conversion (fuel cells use pure Hydrogen as fuel) process. Various other quibbles include contamination of the output with Sodium and Chlorine (salt, decomposed as well).

The scientific responses are variations on a theme of 'it can't be new, economically viable or interesting' which seems incredibly prejudiced given that they're talking from educated guesses rather than direct experimentation. I have not seen any third party analysis of his process which details RF frequency used, wattage required, energy absorbtion (minimums or for hydrogen gas produced). Better yet would be detailed quantum mechanics description of what is going on.

Hopefully this odd (if it is that odd or unexpected) reaction of salt water to RF input might lead someone to creating a method for doing what everyone hopes is going on, ie, an economically viable machine that breaks down water into hydrogen/oxygen. It is possible he's 'shattering' the water, much like a singer can shatter a crystal goblet with the right pitch. This would be resonate dissolution, something none of the 'scientific' responses to Kanzius's process even considered. If it is resonate breakdown of the water it has a possibility of being economically viable. Otherwise it's just an exotic variation of electrolysis, which is notably not economically viable as a hydrogen generator. Most fuel cell hydrogen is generated using fossil fuels derived from petroleum/oil (which are hydrogen studded carbon chains).

Hope this helps.

69.148.93.214 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Chas Coleman chascman[at]sbcglobal.net

Interesting? absolutely. Useful for Wikipedia? Not really. What we need is reliable sources that discusses Kanzius' discovery, which I have yet to find... for whatever reasons there is nothing published on the subject. Maybe it will with time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat Stevens Salman Rushdie fork

The sense of several editors on the main page was that this section was being given too much weight on the main article; forking it off to a separate article seemed prudent, as the fork went into much more detail than the main article needed to. It is not really POV, as it presents both "sides" of the issue, so I respectfully disagree with your moving it back. Did you look at Talk: Cat Stevens by any chance? ThanksTvoz |talk 00:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - sorry - I hadn't seen your comment on the talk page. Will take a closer look now. I certainly agree that it's all given undue weight, but there is one editor who is not willing to take the point, hence the fork. ANy help would be appreciated. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV forks are strongly discouraged. See WP:POVFORK. If involved editors cannot find common ground, please pursue dispute resolution. A POV fork is not a way to resolve a content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand - but actually there were points made in that piece that were on both sides of the issue, so I don't really think that it was a POV fork - the reason it was agreed to fork it off was that it was taking up more space in the main article than seemed needed and a persistent editor insisted on adding to it. So a separate article focused just on that controversy seemed like not such a bad idea. Again, it was not promoting one point of view - it talked about the accusations against the man and his explanations and defense against those allegations - pretty well sourced, and presenting both sides. Just more than the main article should have. Does that make any difference? Tvoz |talk 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That, is exactly what a POV fork is. There is no reason why that material cannot be included in the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but why is it a POV fork if it presents both sides of a controversy? Tvoz |talk 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear - there is one editor who wants more information to be included about this controversy - all more than we thought was needed in the main article - but he was not removing the opposing point of view. He wanted the controversy to be allocated more space in the main article than some of the editors thought was necessary. Cutting it down did not seem like it would work as he wanted it expanded, so the fork, which again included both points of view on the subject, seemed like the right way to go so that the main article would not be distorted by having an overly long (but balanced) section about one item. As explained on the article talk page, it wasn't a conent dispute, it was a question of weight vis-a-vis the entire article.Tvoz |talk 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mean Red Spiders

Thanks for taking the time on this, but. Admin help here would be great. Ceoil 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation in removing contentious unsourced or poorly sourced material from BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand. I'll just fight this one out ;) Ceoil 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The contentious edits reappeared today, but I reverted them just now. I'm removing the article from my watchlist, though; I have other battles to fight. See Talk:John Bedini if you're interested in helping out; it's a Biography of a Living Pseudoscientist :) —mjb 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Ashford & BLP

I've been under the impression that the entry is to some degree autobiographical, and definitely desired. Some comments in the first AfD for this entry seem to indicate that as well.[72] He appears to be regarded by many as a spokesperson for the current Pro-pedophile activism movement, and to be known to and/or admired by some current or former Wikipedia editors. This is not an objection to your revisions; they are absolutely by the book. You just seemed somewhat appalled by his bio as a BLP situation, or perhaps I misread you. Sorry, I missed the fact that you didn't make the initial notification on the BLP noticeboard, only responded. -Jmh123 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A BLP is a BLP, regardless how repugnant a subject may be in our opinionn... Unsourced material must be removed from BLPs, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no objection whatsoever. Just saying that what seems repugnant to us is not so to others--quite the contrary, it makes him a hero to some (most definitely not to me, but to editors I interact with regularly). If they want any of the material returned to his bio, they can find the sources to support it. -Jmh123 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Page about Mary Manin Morrissey

I wanted it to be known that the statements made about me on the discussion about Mary Manin Morrissey are entirely untrue and slanderous. I have never had any restraining orders against me and I have never stalked anyone in my life. These lies are being perpetrated against me for retaliation for speaking out against the corruption I witnessed firsthand at Living Enrichment Center. [73][74] It is a rule on Wikipedia that if statements of a slanderous nature are made about a living person then they must be removed. I have therefore removed these untrue statements about me. -- Andrew Parodi 10:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

SRCM question on talk page

Dear Jossi,

Would you mind giving some advice on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission talk page? We're not sure how to proceed (i.e., should we edit as is, is a merge the same as a delete -- i.e., delete the SRCM page to merge into the Sahaj Marg page, is that still your advice?). Thanks, Renee --Renee 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to merge, and move any material that is properly sourced into the main article. Then, wait to see if there are objections. If objections are forthcoming, address with editors in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Then what do we do with the existing SRCM page? Put a note in that the page has been merged and delete the rest? Thanks again, Renee --Renee 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Use #REDIRECT [[name of the main article]] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are quick. Thanks. Renee --Renee 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of WP:V

Hi there. Thanks for unprotecting the page. Do you think it would would be acceptable for me to add the version 1 wording of the sentence in the Sources section? This wording has strong support on the talk page Here? Nobody who has commented in this effort to determine consensus on the talk page prefers the current wording, which is draft 2. Tim Vickers 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno.... You can try. If it gets reverted it means that it does not have consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked one last time on the talk page if people are OK with this addition. Tim Vickers 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it didn't have consensus.</understatement> Hopefully everybody will get involved in the discussions this time. Tim Vickers 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARM

Thanks. I won't contest your removals - you're right that it's important for a guideline not to read like a binding policy - but I think we may need to work the two-admin thing into it somewhere, even if not as a "rule". I'll try to come up with some compromise wording. Walton^talk 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise wording? It maintains the importance of discussion with other admins, but hopefully doesn't read like a binding ruleset. Walton^talk 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tao-te-ching005.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tao-te-ching005.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I took care of that for you. I think I did it correctly, you may wish to check my work though. Until(1 == 2) 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The source is a self-scan (I own a copy of the book) which I uploaded way before this new template was made necessary. Thanks for the addition of fair use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your strict interpretation of the fair use policy, in removing the image from the translators website. Until(1 == 2) 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And I applaud you for bettering the encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Accidental unprotection?

Hi there, another admin protected WP:V just before you did. It is now semi-protected, did you intend to make it fully-protected? Tim Vickers 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... an honest bubu. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Just a heads up that you haven't fully protected it, only added semi. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oooops! sorry... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sean, could you help...

Hmm, I didn't intend for that to happen. I would prefer to mediate over e-mail and will be doing so shortly... will step in on that talk page when I can; thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Sean Whitton / 10:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Please reply on my talk if you need to.

re: the note

I know that the note was not exactly standard usage, but the problem is that if it's hidden, no one reads it. People don't edit the entire article or the entire section; they edit the section with the book or author in it that they want to change. After a number of false starts, I've managed to structure the article so that it is actually quite hard to simply add new info without a citation, but people can still post "... and along with being similar to book X, they're also similar to book Y". I'm quite paranoid about OR in this article, since it's treading pretty close to the edge of BLP as it is, so if you could think of a format that would ensure people stopped adding it to the article I would appreciate it. Serendipodous 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but yet these type of "notes" do not belong in article space. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting iPhone facts

Fact: iPhone does not stream .pls MP3 files, so why are your reverting this clarification? Leave it to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyforall1776 (talk • contribs)

See WP:V, which explains that you need to provide sources for such claims. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation update

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad --Sefringle^Talk 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy editing

Yes, this is far more stressful and aggravating than the simple matter of writing articles. Focussing on SV and her past actions, although illuminating on why she is so determined to block this proposal in any way possible, is not the most constructive course of action. I just found it deeply irritating to discover that, despite her constant instructions to others that they must follow the consultative process and build consensus, it was her out-of-process and unilateral change that removed this part of the original policy. However, we now have a wording that restores that part of the policy, so that is something that has been achieved from this acrimonious mess. I think I will step back and watch what happens for a while. Maybe the current version will be a stable compromise? Anyway, thanks for the advice, all the best Tim Vickers 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is a long-standing contributor to this project, and she has gained my respect and the trust of the community over the years. Do not judge an editor on one interaction or take it out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true, her actions in this dispute may be unrepresentative. I'm lucky I have my kittens to keep me calm. Having four little bundles of fur bouncing around the house and tugging at your feet while you are trying to type makes it almost impossible to remain annoyed at anything for long! The photo on my user page is of one sleeping on my kitchen floor. Perfect stress relief. :) Tim Vickers 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason we love our pets so much, is that they do not judge us. They do not judge us or anything else, for that matter. Something to learn from them, surely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You've not seen how the mother cat looks at me when she gets the same type of food for several days running. The look says very clearly, "Human, this is not acceptable." :) Tim Vickers 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear Arms dispute

Re my question on the WP:V article, Can you take a look at the Right_to_bear_arms page, especially the trailing topics on the Talk:Right_to_bear_arms#Open_Issues page. There seems to be a dispute over including a direct quote from a legal document. Thanks. Arthurrh 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New pages bot

It'd be a pretty minor change to get the current bot to do that, since it can route different events to different channels via a dynamic congfiguration. The only problem at the moment is that we don't have an option for all new pages, but that'll be simple enough to add. I'm actually away from home for the next week and a half, but may get chance to look at it.

When done it should just be a case of setting up the new channel and telling the bot to report all new pages there. pgk 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Look forward to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

question on consensus

Dear Jossi,

I'm writing about the Shri Ram Chandra Mission Page. There are currently three active editors. You had suggested to merge it into the Sahaj Marg page and I think one other editor agrees. One editor does not agree. In the current form of the page I have no preference. What do we do in these cases where the admin suggests merge and there's not 100% consensus?

Also, there's still lots of primary source or geocities-type citations here. Would you mind looking at it and either offer suggestions or edit it to make it consistent with Wiki guidelines? That would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're a saint (and a quick one too) - thanks. Renee --Renee 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3ABN

Jossi, I think I accidentally reverted you, my apologies. See comments and explanation here [75]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Requests_for_verification new comment Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I pinged you (you seem to be connected), but I figure you might be away or IRC hidden. When you get a chance, can you possibly PM me (Daniel-Bryant) when you get a chance? Cheers, Daniel 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with Spanish editor

Hello,

Would you mind taking over from me with this Spanish editor. He obviously feels very strongly about the integrity of Spain, and has been replacing sundry references to the Canary Islands, Catalonia, Ceuta, etcetera, with references to Spain, including on other peoples' user pages.[76][77] These edits are certainly inappropriate, and they look to me like agenda-driven trolling, but the user claims to have minimal knowledge of English, so I may have been mistaken. I am not confident that I can communicate successfully with this user.

Hesperian 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. Hesperian 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Politico-media complex

Hey Jossi, hope you are well. Got a favour, if you feel obliging. I've listed Politico-media complex for deletion because to me it smacks of OR, have a look at the Politico-media complex#Handling failure section for example. I've listed it for afd but it isn't drawing much attention, one person seems to think the fact it lists a lot of sources is a good thing, ignoring the conflation of sources and the creation of a novel narrative from them. I would appreciate your thoughts, your experience in this area is better than mine. Ta. Steve block Talk 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have stubbed the article and removed all OR. Let editors add material slowly in a manner that is consistent with our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good rewrite, and will do. Cheers. Steve block Talk 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GA backlog

Please notice the request on my talk page on the 11th July to help clear the backlog of GA nominations, linkthe list of the top 5 most delayed nominations on this date was this. I reviewed Veganism and Harisu. You might also notice that I have contributed to the Veganism talk page before. Please do not be so quick to jump to unpleasant conclusions.

When I noticed SV reverting an edit, I realised she was a contributor, and that this might cause problems and have already asked somebody else to take over the GA review. If you have any further questions about this review I suggest you contact User:Gosgood. All the best Tim Vickers 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would assume good faith, but this, and the Veganism review that made me think otherwise. In any case, if that was just a fluke, let's leave it at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope the next one on the list, Raëlian Church, isn't so controversial. Tim Vickers 04:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Renewable energy

There have been some drastic deletions in the Renewable energy article, and I would like to get the missing text restored please. I've done one revert, but am thinking it may need an Admin to do a deeper revert, to undo revisions by jbntj from 18:58 on 13 July. Any help would be appreciated. -- Johnfos 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping

Jossi, thanks for your support. But the ref you added back isn't the preferred one. It uses the word photoshopping, but doesn't talk about the term itself, which the most recently removed one did. Oh, and good job getting the GA for the canons. Dicklyon 06:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dick. It does. See the quote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did see it; it says ""And with digital photography, there is also the possibility of photoshopping -– digtally editing the representation to make it more aesthetically pleasing, or to change decisions about framing". Here, nothing would be changed if they had used "photo editing" or "photo manipulation"; they aren't really talking about the term itself, though they do clarify what they mean by it. The other one, however, talks of "photo-shopping" in quotes and refers to the word itself and its use in saying "(as it is now generally known in the commercial design industry)". And it's in a very serious context, of relevant topic, in a serious book, section on digital photo manipulation. I don't understand the logic of the two guys objecting to this ref, or your logic of choosing the other one. And it looks like your help isn't going to be well received unless you discuss it first, so, what to do? Maybe I'll put a comment like this there. Dicklyon 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can have both sources cited. No harm in that.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my preference as well, but then these guys complain about undue weight. Dicklyon 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling

I really would appreciate your input on the points raised by hornplease. Serendipodous 07:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed stub for SRCM page

Dear Jossi,

It seems that the only other active Shri Ram Chandra Mission editor is actively against a merge, so I proposed a stub.

I value your opinion and wonder if there's anything in the stub that is POV or if any of the references (or the way the evidence is presented) is not consistent with Wiki guidelines.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are doing pretty good without my help.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have NIS (Newbie Imposter Syndrome, characterized by lack of certainty if one is doing it right and an unwillingness to make a move until assurances are there, similar in behavior sometimes to a 4-year-old). I'll forge ahead. Thanks again. Renee --Renee 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New POV edits added Sahaj Marg page

Dear Jossi,

Several new POV edits have been added without prior discussion, where selectively selected source text has been added and interpretated to promote a certain point-of-view, adding anti-cult sources to justify a statement, and using many primary quotations out of context.

I'm not sure what to do as this will start a new round of edit wars with the same editor who energetically promoted his view before, so would request that the page be reverted back the the stub I completed July 12th, fully protect it, and then perhaps we can work it out on the discussion page.

Advice appreciated.

Renee --Renee 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pls use article talk page insted of user talk page.

Jossi,

Kindly explain your recent changes on Sahaj Marg page. which wiki policy or which reference in the edits was not as per wiki standered. kindly explain your changes. you have stated see talk page, but have not pointed out if it is your own talk page of article talk page.--Shashwat pandey 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in talk, and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Sahaj Marg pages

I can see a simple resolution to dead lock, can we have two Sahaj Marg pages, one Sahaj Marg (California) and one Sahaj Marg (Shahjahanpur). with one SRCM page, as in due course of time one of the group will vanish, as after court order one of them have to go. however both will countinue to teach their flavor of Sahaj Marg, can you create two pages for Sahaj Marg.--Shashwat pandey 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But Sahaj Marg is the same practice across the two groups. Your complaints all seem to be against the Chennai group. Renee --Renee 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AIVs

Dear Jossi,

I have filed an AIV for Shashwat Pandey for long term disruptive editing. In retaliation he has filed one against me.

Mr. Johnathan wrote and asked me why he did that. I explained the history briefly, but he doesn't know my history of editing. Would you be willing to give your honest opinion as to whether or not I have been editing in good faith and your take on the situation with Shashwat. Here is his user page. [78]

Thank you, Renee --Renee 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

S.B. talk page

It was relevant, especially in my situation- being the focus of an ArbCom where I've been accused of POV pushing. I put it there because I was afraid people would start screaming bloody murder that here I was trying to POV-push the paranormal again. Anyway, I changed it to something less inflammatory. But did I violate any policy with the first post? I just want to know for future reference; I'm not an expert on BLP. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Martin. Thanks for removing the comment, read WP:BLP for details. Hapyp editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Got an edit conflict on this, but will post anyway:

This is all assuming it can't be called a personal attack- I didn't really think of it that way, just a belief based on evidence. "Evil" to me is not an insult, but a factual statement which is verified or not. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid making such comments in talk pages. Talk pages are provided to discuss the article, not to engage in polemics about the subject of articles. You can do that on your blog, or personal home page, but not in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK and WP:NOT for some pertinent guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert by edits in Indian Army article?

I have specified the reason for editing in Indian Army discussion page. You should read them first before making any decision to revert back the editing.

Missiles have different missions ATGM to Ballistic missile- you can't include them under a single table. Thats why i have removed it. I am reverting back it again. If you have any suggestions, PLZ make then Indian Army Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 (talk • contribs)

Do not remove large swaths of material from articles without discussing first. I will add some pointers in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then do not blindly revert edits without even reading or replying discussion page. You should consider reading in discussion page before taking any action. Did you even try the compare changes i made? --60.243.161.52 05:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When you make such major edits to material that is long-standing, you need to explain your actions in talk page. Being a new editor, it would be best if you make small changes at a time and explain your edits in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

is this appropriate?

Dear Jossi,

Is something like this appropriate? [79]

For those who read the files, they'll see I've tried to engage this user in meaningful dialogue repeatedly, which he just dismisses and posts what he wants (others have noticed the same thing [80]).

He has posted personal attacks on my user page, on the Sahaj Marg talk page, and now this banner on his user page. Any advice is appreciated - is there any Wiki recourse?

Renee --Renee 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have helped as much as I could. Please pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Renee 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removal of mail

Please note that I have made a complaint about the removal of my mail to you by SV, and my being banned as a result of sending it to you here -- Sparkzilla talk! 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. You should have been forthcoming with me about the fact that you are that author of that op-ed. You need not to edit that article as per the abundant feedback given to you at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

kudos

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your fairness, neutralness, and speed with which you respond to requests. It is greatly appreciated. Renee 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community has in me. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Hey Jossi, I don't think I was very clear in my brief edit summary: by placing the {{db-move}} on J. K. Rowling, I intended for it to be deleted so that J.K. Rowling (no space) could be redirected to J. K. (with space, as is correct). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OOps. I will take care of it. Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

69.118.129.76 Harassing List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut and Users Again

Since you locked the page List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut due to the behavior of 69.118.129.76 in the past, you might be interested to know that the user is at it again. He or he is engaging in harassing and disruptive behavior on the page List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut and is engaging in baiting behavior towards anyone who reverts his or her edits by flaunting warnings on their user talk page. It seems that unless you are an admin, the user will only ignore warnings and harass others even more. I would love to detail each incident but the trail of contributions this user has made speaks for itself. Here is the user's talk page [81] and here is a view of what the user has done on the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page [82]. —SpyMagician 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to mention that I made an effort to help the parties reach a compromise on Ridgefield. Tried to be diplomatic, perhaps not perfect, but it did end up with a rather good resolution. Meanwhile, I wanted to mention that you haven't replied to some recent comments (June) on the talk page of the cults in literature article. Do you think you and DKing can work this out together? Would you prefer that I propose specific language or contribute in some other way? HG | Talk 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have decided that it is not worth my while pursuing editing that article. Dking is a very opinionated editor that writes professionally on the subject, and I find it too difficult to engage him in discussions related to keeping with the content policies of Wikipedia, which I believe, it is very hard for him to accept given his expertise in the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding so promptly! Good luck with your various other efforts. Best, HG | Talk 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for verification

In reference to what is now the proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for verification you mentioned posting on wiki-en mailing list History about the proposal. I have not seen it posted. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for verification and post it to wiki-en mailing list? If you think the proposal needs more work first please leave a comment on the talk page. Jeepday (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the proposal is huge mistake. I have asked mailing lists recipients to comment in the proposal talk's page. This is what I wrote:

---

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

" It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedias's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

"If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.

"The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days. (This template was added: XXX XX 2007.)

"If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research."

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others ( me included) see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk.

---

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fair thanks Jeepday (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris Editorial Policy

Hi jossi, I am writing you as once again one editor is citing you as permission to delete well sourced material if no one objects within a weeks time. Is this Policy True:O or has this editor ill informed? Please advice. Quote:OK. I started adding some citations tags where citations are needed in the article. If those citations are not provided in a reasonable amount of time, ( A week sounds good to me...according to Jossi's previous suggestion) the contents under those citations will be deleted... so, that is 7/24/07... Best, avyakt7 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)END QUOTE PEACETalkAbout 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) Try and find sources for the claims made; (b) if you cannot find sources, mark it as {{fact}}; (c) after waiting some time (discretionary), delete and move to talk. That is more or less the way I would do it. But there is no explicit policy that dictates that in that manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will note it down.PEACETalkAbout 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey

Dear Jossi,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding [83]:

• Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
• Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
• You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

View comments

Helllo! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to have your opinion with regards to my comments here. Your opinion would be valuable here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Politico-media complex

Hi Jossi. Could you have a look at the differences here and see what you think. I don't think sourcing the same commentator twice justifies the weasel term "some commentators", and I'm not convinced the two pieces of commentary substantiate the claims made. I'm not sure there's enough in the sources to declare that the Politico-media complex represents a cartel that works against the public interest. I also feel the text is becoming overly complicated, with the phrase "deleterious distortions of public opinion" being a little dramatic if we merely want to indicate it could have a negative effect. I also can't see any justification to add the Iraq War to the see also section, apart from if there is a point to push. I've tried engaging on the talk page but merely received an earful, [84]. Appreciate any help or advice you care to offer. Steve block Talk 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Will take a look. Seems like a POV magnet.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the look. Steve block Talk 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it's turned into an edit war. I'm bowing out before I hit the 3RR wall. Steve block Talk 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not allowed to tag

I am trying to take your advice regarding tagging an article as {{unreferenced}} then waiting before removing information. What should I do when editors will not even let me place an {{unreferenced}} tag on an article that has no references as is happening here? Until(1 == 2) 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, this time referring to policy worked, sort of. I am now moving forward on the cleanup. Though I would appreciate any commentary you have on how I have been cleaning up this article, the change in my method is based largely on your advice on marking, researching, and waiting. Until(1 == 2) 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mean Red Spiders may need admin attention

Hello Jossi. I see you're one of the editors who has reverted offensive edits to the Mean Red Spiders article. The entry at WP:BLPN#Mean Red Spiders seems to call for blocks. I wonder if you agree? If you consider yourself too involved, do you have any suggestions for the next step? Curiously, I suspect that User:Dashumphreys is the real guy. Since he did not stop after your 9 July warning on his User Talk, blocking is still IMHO appropriate. EdJohnston 22:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV only if less then a week

User:BirgitteSB made an interesting sugggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Not sure what I think about this proposal in short "{{RFV}} may only be used on articles articles less then a week old." It address many concerns of those opposed. It clarifies that this is tool for encouraging referencing and limits (severely) the potential for misuse. Think about it for a minute then please come and share your thoughts. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Crit creep

[85] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Su-Jada

Both Su-Jada and Tilman have broken 3RR on that article. If one of them is blocked, I think the other should be as well - Tilman shouldn't get special treatment just because he was the first one to file a report. I was thinking that rather than blocking both of them, which would prevent the discussion from continuing, it would be better to protect the article. There's ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, and now S-Jada's side has been forced out. The block gives an unfair advantage to one side of the debate, which isn't supposed to be what 3RR is for.

I was about to protect the article and say this same thing on the 3RR noticeboard, but I had an edit conflict with you. So what do you think? Would you be willing to unblock that user and protect the article instead, so the discussion can continue? Kafziel ^Talk 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Either unblock Su-Jada and protect the article or block the other user. I will not object to either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock and protect, as long as that's cool with you. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you are doing on the Diocese of Shrewsbury page. I have spent my morning very slowly updating it to bring it up to date only to find you have removed whats taken me the best part of an hour setting up new tables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.119.140 (talk • contribs)

Honest mistake, sorry. I have restored your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you check...

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_regarding_source_at_Right_to_bear_arms. It seems similar to what you answered there in the section above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I just have your comment about this.

Hi, I sent this to Kusma about an ongoing argument that she is half-involved in about whether a criminals name should be put on a schools article, which has now been blocked. Below is what I sent:<blockquote. Hi, I'm Wjs13 that person who seems to be fighting an ongoing battle with some other un-signed up user. Can I please ask for the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page to be unblocked. I can't work out on the List of page's to be protected thing how to get the page unblocked, or protest it. However, I only want it to be unblocked if that other unknown user stops polluting a page with the murderers on the alumni. The school has nothing to do with it other than the fact he is known to have attended the school for several years. It looks a bit weird going to that page and seeing that it is blocked for a dispute which clearly is just an argument that everybody who visits the page seems to be joining in, and people don't need to be told that a school article is having an argument against it on whether a murderers name is allowed to be on it!

I can't talk to that other person who keeps editing those articles and putting those facts that I clearly am not happy with since she/he doesn't want to. Can you please leave a message - I am consulting you about this since you are the only admin who probably has heard about this.

I'm getting angry as the unknown user seems to be not wanting to discuss it and prefers to just change them instantly - she/he is treating it like this place is Fort Knox.

I would like the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page unblocked because it seems a bit strange that people are arguing about a school article - maybe if the actual tag that it is blocked can be removed and make the fact it is blocked hidden? Kusma, from all the last times I have consulted her and whoever I so called consult the other user decides to just go and cry to them. I really don't know what to do, can you help at all?

Wjs13 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Can you please respond on my talk page

On user Mario scolas and the Laurette Onkelinx article

Just google Please, just google to search for information on reliable web sites. I'm sure you will find the confirmation. Know also that user 'Mario scolas' is a member of the SP (google too for that, find http://www.psmolenbeek.be/Liste.htm and scroll down to see his name). Everything in this article on Onkelinx is about FACTS. One can think that some information is too much about only a part of Onkelinx's career and about her private life. Nevertheless I think the visible and known link between a minister and criminals matters. An article about the painter Michael Borremans (not my article) has been condamned because it was an article based upon information from his gallery (no objective information) and that is right to me. If Mario Scolas, a member of the socialist party in Belgium, a party overtly linked with criminals, maffia and Islam terrorists (pour les besoins de la cause), can write an article about Onkelinx, ommitting everything in the story that does not fit, why shouldn't nazi's write the article on Hilter or why shouldn't the head of Dunlop write the article on rubber ? I'm sorry to say I think it's a shame that you dared to erase all biographic information in this article. It can be seen as a terrorist act.

I have a subscription on www.mediargus.be. You can find this article in the Belgian magazine Le Vif/L'Express, the most important weekly magazine in Belgium for the French-speaking. You will find the story about Guenned.

"Puissance Onkelinx

La fille d'ouvrier au sourire facile a grimpé tous les échelons. Elle en impose grâce à une force de travail incontestable, à des convictions profondes et à des appuis solides. Parce qu'elle aime ça, dominer. Portrait à son image, sans chantilly

Pas besoin de bouquin Pragmatique, pas romantique

Depuis près de vingt ans, Laurette Onkelinx affiche son sourire en politique comme Elio Di Rupo brandit le n£ud papillon. Il est de toutes les saisons. Elle le met à toutes les sauces. C'est son arme anti-cynisme, qui l'empêche de mal vieillir. La vice-Première ministre s'en sert pour séduire, convaincre, fuir en douce, masquer son embarras ou bluffer un adversaire. Elle peut vous jouer un vilain tour, dit-on, sans même arrêter de vous sourire. « J'ai pris l'habitude de ne plus jamais m'asseoir à ses côtés lors d'un débat télévisé, témoigne une "victime". Face à la caméra, Laurette Onkelinx, tout miel, pose la main sur votre bras en se penchant légèrement vers l'avant. D'un ton paternaliste, dominateur, en fait, elle veut gentiment indiquer que vous n'êtes pas à la hauteur... »

En Belgique, si on exclut les quelques machos de service croisant le fer à la Rue de la Loi, personne d'autre ne maîtrise aussi bien la norme de la force qui régit la politique. Une source d'ennui pour quiconque s'autoriserait à toiser ce petit bout de femme qui ferait le bonheur des photographes de mode. Quand elle a débarqué pour la deuxième fois au gouvernement fédéral, en 1999, on raconte que Laurette Onkelinx grimpait quasi physiquement sur la table pour imposer ses vues, « son » socialisme. Face à des « grandes gueules » comme Guy Verhofstadt ou Louis Michel, parti à la Commission européenne, elle a rapidement haussé les décibels pour indiquer de quel bois elle se chauffait : certaines âmes sensibles gardent un souvenir troublé de ces coups de colère assortis de jurons grossiers, mâtinés d'une pointe d'accent liégeois. « Je sais, je suis capable de me transformer en sauvage pour défendre mes idées », admet-elle.

Bien entendu, le téléspectateur moyen ne perçoit aucun de ces « talents » cachés. A la scène, l'avenante Laurette n'est plus la négociatrice rude et implacable qui arpente les coulisses de la décision. Sa maîtrise de soi est impressionnante. Elle en joue d'ailleurs habilement, comme pour démontrer à ses alter ego son intense sérénité et sa capacité permanente à élever son niveau d'exigence. Qui, donc, a jamais vu un seul passage en télé où la Bruxelloise d'adoption serait apparue décontenancée ? Face aux projecteurs, même en cas de crise, Laurette Onkelinx refuse généralement la polémique. Elle évite de balancer des « piques » contre un collègue si elle craint que cela ne puisse la desservir à terme. Mais elle n'en pense pas moins. Malheur aux fragiles...

Ce côté dure à cuire, l'ancienne patronne de la Communauté française le cultive depuis son passage à l'enseignement, de 1993 à 1999. Pendant des mois, les mesures d'économie de la ministre Onkelinx sont sèchement combattues par les syndicats d'enseignants (lire p. 19). Le face-à-face est viril. Onkelinx campe sur ses positions. A la télévision, elle sourit, un peu crispée, en penchant légèrement la tête sur le côté : je vous ai compris mais je ne céderai pas. Le conflit s'envenime, des opposants dérapent : le mari d'origine marocaine de la ministre (elle s'est remariée depuis avec l'avocat Marc Uyttendaele) fait l'objet d'insultes racistes ; ses enfants sont harcelés dans la cour de récré. Mais Onkelinx fait front. « C'est le pire souvenir de ma carrière, dit-elle encore aujourd'hui. Nous avons dû regrouper les lits à l'arrière de notre maison. Dehors, des gens nous balançaient des boules de neige contenant des morceaux de fer. La haine se lisait dans leurs yeux. J'ai tenu bon car ces économies dans l'enseignement étaient indispensables. J'ai voulu me prouver que je pouvais résister à cette furie. » Une manière de couper le cordon ombilical avec son syndicaliste de père, Gaston Onkelinx, son tuteur, sa conscience ?

Assurément, cette épreuve de force à l'enseignement est l'acte fondateur de la « dame de fer » Onkelinx, courageuse et opiniâtre. Son image s'est construite sur cet événement. Elle lui colle à la peau. Ce fut l'occasion de vérifier - aussi - qu'en politique il faut aimer la solitude. Président du PS à l'époque, Philippe Busquin n'a jamais porté l'ambitieuse Laurette dans son c£ur. En l'envoyant au casse-pipe de l'enseignement, on chuchote que Busquin espérait qu'elle s'y brûlerait les ailes. Après coup, Laurette Onkelinx ne lui a jamais pardonné son courrier électoral aux enseignants : pour récupérer la sauce, le président du PS indiquait qu'il n'aurait pas agi, lui, de la même manière.

Laurette Onkelinx a déboulé sur terre le 2 octobre 1958, à Ougrée. La banlieue ouvrière de Liège-la-rouge, ses corons, ses usines qui tournent encore à plein régime. Le décor est planté. Le Flamand Gaston y a émigré en 1950 en provenance du Limbourg, en même temps que ses parents ouvriers. Il y sera délégué syndical au moment des grandes grèves, puis échevin à Ougrée, parlementaire sur ordre d'André Cools et bourgmestre de Seraing après la fusion des communes. A ses côtés, Laurette, ses quatre frères et sa s£ur vont connaître une éducation stricte. Dans la maison familiale, on ne rit pas tous les jours. Liège est désormais à feu et à sang. Cockerill licencie à tour de bras. Des manifestants balancent des pavés dans le centre-ville. « Certains doivent lire des bouquins pour comprendre le cadre collectif des luttes sociales, commente Laurette Onkelinx. Moi, je sais ce que c'est. J'ai vu ces chômeurs paumés que mon père recevait à la maison. J'ai vu comment s'organisait le combat pour la solidarité et contre le racisme ordinaire. » L'aînée des deux s£urs va assumer pleinement ce déterminisme social. En deux temps. Elle est la seule à entreprendre des études - ce sera le droit, à l'université de Liège. Elle se rêve en savante, avide de connaissance. Elle se moque de ce professeur d'université qui estime que « son manque d'éloquence trahit ses origines sociales ». Puis l'avocate aux dents longues découvre sur le tard la fibre politique. Parce que ses convictions ne lui suffisent plus : elle veut être concrète. Députée en 1987, ministre dès 1992, Laurette Onkelinx peut remercier ses deux parrains en politique, André Cools et Philippe Moureaux. Dès ses débuts, « cette fille au sourire si facile » accepte le combat à mains nues. Une constante au cours de sa phase liégeoise : ses meilleurs ennemis se trouvent dans son propre parti. Le ton est donné à l'occasion de sa première campagne. Onkelinx prône « l'intensité dans l'action » censée ramener le PS au pouvoir. Son camarade Jean-Maurice Dehousse suggère plutôt de (lui ?) « résister ». En fait, cette Liégeoise pur sucre, fougueuse et passionnée, réussira partout sauf... à Liège. Sans surprise, en 2001, dix ans après l'assassinat non élucidé de Cools, elle jettera l'éponge sans jamais avoir pu dompter l'appareil socialiste dans la Principauté, livrée à la guerre des clans. Elle se réfugiera à Bruxelles, près de Moureaux. Trop heureuse d'abandonner les Dehousse, Happart et même Daerden qu'elle a toujours détestés. Une ombre noire à son tableau de chasse.

Que reste-t-il aujourd'hui de son socialisme populaire, hérité en droite ligne d'une figure paternelle quasi héroïque ? « Laurette Onkelinx ne parle pas seulement le socialisme, elle est viscéralement socialiste », convient un ministre d'un autre bord politique. Nul ne pourrait lui contester cette authenticité. La chef de file des ministres socialistes au gouvernement fédéral est fière de ses racines, sûre de ses convictions - elle y tient comme à la prunelle de ses yeux. Elle prétend se battre dans un monde de brutes pour davantage de justice sociale. Elle est très attachée au bien public, au point d'être parfois qualifiée de rigoriste ou de janséniste, ce qui a de quoi rassurer après l'automne des scandales liés aux abus de pouvoir. « C'est du socialisme au quotidien, pas à pas, sans chantilly », dit un proche. Car la vice-Première ministre n'est pas la révolutionnaire qu'elle rêvait d'être. Remettre l'école sur les rails, gérer le département de l'Emploi quand l'économie patine, reprendre la Justice en main après Marc Verwilghen : les chantiers majeurs de la ministre au long cours l'ont inscrite dans le réel. Elle n'est pas une romantique, mais une pragmatique. « Je préfère marquer des buts plutôt que de chanter béatement la révolution », admet-elle, avec une pointe d'agacement dans la voix. Du reste, elle assume tout. Jusqu'à la cohabitation « contre nature » avec les libéraux (la formule lui revient, prononcée dès l'automne 2003). « C'est dans le rapport de force qu'on voit la coalition idéale », complète-t-elle. On croirait entendre Elio Di Rupo ou Guy Spitaels, les hérauts du socialisme du possible. Sans doute est-elle plus progressiste que Di Rupo sur les thèmes socio-économiques. Ses victoires en faveur des plus faibles sont nombreuses. C'est son fonds de commerce, son héritage familial. En revanche, son réflexe a toujours été moins naturel lorsque son parti ou le gouvernement ont abordé la question des libertés individuelles. Abolition de la peine de mort, dépénalisation partielle de l'avortement ou de l'euthanasie, mariage homosexuel..., Laurette Onkelinx avoue à chaque fois avoir hésité. Une question de priorités, dit-elle. « Au début, je considérais que c'était un luxe. J'y suis arrivée par cheminement personnel. »

Avec ses (presque) quinze printemps de ministre au compteur, Laurette Onkelinx est désormais à la tête d'une redoutable armada (lire l'encadré p. 17). Une centaine de personnes travaillent à son cabinet, une dizaine de « cerveaux » vivent cachés à l'Institut Emile Vandervelde (IEV), le bureau d'étude du PS, et tous sont priés de suivre le rythme endiablé de la ministre, infatigable bûcheuse - les mauvaises langues estiment qu'elle a besoin de cette frénésie pour pallier le chouia de génie politique qui lui manquerait. L'entreprise Onkelinx est une affaire qui tourne. Une véritable machine de guerre. L'Ecolo Isabelle Durant en garde un souvenir amer. De 1999 à 2003, elle s'est fait littéralement broyer par Onkelinx et les siens. Dans ce gouvernement arc-en-ciel des contraires, unissant libéraux, socialistes et écologistes, la locomotive d'un PS affaibli par les urnes souhaitait ardemment démontrer qu'elle restait le maître achat de la gauche. Et qui donc était cette petite infirmière venue de nulle part ? Malheur pour Durant : elle avait l'outrecuidance de contraindre Onkelinx au partage du titre de première femme à accéder au poste de vice-Première ministre du pays. Tout y est donc passé. Onkelinx débarquait avec des notes complètes là où Durant était outillée de papier brouillon. Onkelinx nouait des alliances opportunes avec les libéraux pour brouiller les pistes. Onkelinx laissait Durant s'empêtrer sur le chantier de la SNCB ou sur celui des vols de nuit, jurant ses grands dieux qu'Ecolo seul manquait de loyauté. Etc. Car quand Laurette Onkelinx est lancée, rien ne l'arrête. Pas question pour un ministre socialiste de lui faire de l'ombre - pas même l'expérimenté Charles Picqué, reparti la queue entre les jambes au gouvernement bruxellois ! Pas question d'improviser le moindre détail de sa communication politique. La pasionaria socialiste contrôle tout. Y compris ses présences médiatiques. Certains de ses effets d'annonce ne manquent pas de culot. Ainsi, en 2000, en dévoilant son plan « Rosetta », censé mettre des milliers de jeunes au boulot, elle avait briefé quelques journalistes en les priant instamment de ne pas recouper l'information. Elle voulait que ce soit « son » coup et qu'ils répercutent religieusement la bonne parole. Un demi-succès, pour une fois.

Même Elio Di Rupo est sous le charme de la puissante dame. Il lui laisse les coudées franches, pariant qu'elle lui sera d'une fidélité totale. Etoiles montantes du PS des années 1990, les deux ténors actuels du parti ont implicitement signé jadis un pacte de non-agression. Ce ne sont pas des intimes, mais ils sont complémentaires. Ils ont construit leur carrière en bonne intelligence, en se partageant les influences. Le séducteur Di Rupo ratisse large et engage son charisme. Gestionnaire patentée, désormais incontournable, Onkelinx est très appréciée des militants. Comme Di Rupo, la néo-Bruxelloise a évité toutes les chausse-trapes des « affaires ». Parce qu'elle a un sens aigu de la vertu ? Parce qu'elle n'exerce qu'un seul mandat, ce qui est particulièrement rare et respectable ? Seul son c£ur gros comme un pamplemousse pourrait un jour lui jouer de sales tours. Par amour, sans doute, elle a recyclé son premier mari - Abbès Guenned - au sein même de son cabinet ministériel. L'homme la conseille pour des dossiers relatifs à la Communauté musulmane. Il a été suspecté de trafic de drogue ainsi que d'usage irrégulier de passeport diplomatique à la fin des années 1990. Par amour, assurément, Laurette Onkelinx refuse de demander à son second mari, l'éminent juriste Marc Uyttendaele, qu'il n'interfère plus dans ses affaires politiques. Lui intervient quand il le souhaite pour conseiller aux partis francophones telle ou telle attitude sur le front institutionnel. Onkelinx n'en a cure. Elle semble décidément sûre d'elle. Au point d'envisager bientôt une nouvelle montée en puissance. A la présidence du parti, elle serait enfin seule aux commandes : il n'est pas sûr qu'elle en rêve, mais c'est son destin de femme puissante. l"

© 2006 Le_Vif_Express

Publicatie: Le Vif Express / Le Vif/L'Express Publicatiedatum: 17 maart 2006 Auteur: Ph. E.; avec D.K. et M-C.R.; Pagina: 16 Aantal woorden: 2441"

You can check the story here. Please don't have too much confidence in people like Mario scolas who are willing to do ANYTHING not for Socialism, not for the working claas, but for the interests of a CLUB organised as a POLITICAL PARTY.--BogaertB 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laurette_Onkelinx" --BogaertB 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jossi, the main point of the BLP drama between these two users is the Guenned story., not the other criticism (which I agree now, was also badly source, but that could be improved esaily). Of course, it is clear that the Guenned source quoted by Bogaert is anti-Onkelinx and that it omits that Guenned, who is a Belgian of Moroccan descent living in Belgium was suspected of drug trafficking by a former MOROCCAN government for political reasons (he worked to break the control of that Moroccan government over the votes of Moroccans in Belgium).

As for the rest of the drama, someone ought to tell Mario scolas that it is a very bad idea (and even hurts his case!) when he deletes comments by BogaertB. I will try to do that myself. --Pan Gerwazy 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a large passage of text marked "© 2006 Le_Vif_Express" should not be re-posted on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, this long passage should be replaced by a link for discussion purposes. Until(1 == 2) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, Jossi for putting all this on your talk page) I had not noticed that copyright. Well, I do not think BogaertB wants to put the entire Vif text, he wants to put back the text about Guenned as it existed before (and which I copy dited before, by the way - to delete everything that was too obviously libellous). The Vif article being obviously anti-Onkelinx makes it a partisan source as well. In any case, we have a WP:UNDUE problem on the article: too much emphasis on criticism, and if the original Guenned passage is restored, too much emphasis on a story which is about a controversial ex-husband. For instance, there is nothing at all about Onkelinx's unsuccessful attempt to become mayor of Schaerbeek and the repercussions of its failure (the Greens were thrown out of a number of coalitions elsewhere in the Brussels area). That was the last time LO came in the Belgian news nationwide. I have no problem with a sentence (perhaps under "private life") saying "LO used to be married to Guenned, her counsellor on Islamic affairs and a controversial figure because a former right-wing Moroccan government indicted him on drug smuggling, a charge which was dropped by the present government of Morocco". (that does not include the fact that he was a Belgian national, and so could not be extradited, but the suggestion that he should have been extradited but was not because of LO's intervention, was OR already anyway). When I find the Humo article, more could be added, but again, there is an awful danger of WP:UNDUE here.

The problem with the two users inserting and deleting (until recently, the page has been protected) seems to be personal as well, with the two not only knowing each other in real life (as political enemies) but even being directly at odds. According to this (sorry all this is in Dutch) one guy has for some time been trying to get his aging mother committed to a lunatic asylum, while the other guy is preventing that as a civil servant working for the town administration of Molenbeek, claiming that the lady is of sound mind and the only problem is nobody cares about her anymore. Unfortunately, most of what BogaertB says about Mario Scolas seems to be true (he has vandalized a lot recently), but a lot of BogaertB's name calling still falls under personal attack as well. Calling someone an antisemite for wanting to delete an article about someone with a Jewish name (Maarten Rudelsheim) whom I personally had never heard about, is just one example. Both users should be warned about edit warring and personal attacks and Mario Scolas should be warned to no longer vandalize to talk pages. If they persist in their behaviour, they should be banned. --Pan Gerwazy 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some help here

Why is CJCurrie permitted to keep the original non-neutral edits? And isn't he in violation of the 3RR rule if he pushes it one more time? MaxForce 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Morgan

You removed a bunch of info, but cited WP:BLP; however this is a fictional character and I dont think BLP applies here ;) That said, that info needed to be removed anyways because it is completely uncited Corpx 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I took notice of that later on (lol!) but decided to keep the removal because it was lengthy and comnpletely uncited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

You posted on my talk page that I vandalized the article Kakashi Hatake, when, in fact, I *unvandalized* it. If you check the history, I undid that vandalism. Cobi 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologized for my mistake in your talk. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes :) Cobi 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

False Warning?

Is there a reason you warned Cobi? ~ Wikihermit 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken identity. I will apologize to Winbot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• RC patrol is fast paced. I've done it myself more than once. - Crockspot 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

yep... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've done it too. ~ Wikihermit 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert on my user talk page

Hi, you reverted my cleanup on my own user talk page. I went through the issues people posted on it and checked out the pages they mentioned. Once I was done, I cleaned it up (did so because one of the old messages there had already been fixed and I forgot to erase and ended up double-checking it). Is there a problem in cleaning up one's own user talk page? Thanks for any directions, I'm not a major wikipedia contributor by any means, but I try to help when I can. -- LodeRunner 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not any references tag" on Armstrong page

-Jossi, this article had seven good references, and is now up to thirteen. Should we still have that tag? What about this sort, which I've seen before: "This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes"

Jebbrady 07:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I will respond in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alterego269 continues personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

On July 18, you blocked User:Alterego269 for 31 hours for incivility and disruption. If you look at Special:Contributions/Alterego269, you will see he has not changed his poor behaviour on Wikipedia. He has continued to erase every single message and warning on his talk page, falsely accuse other editors of vandalism or harassment, make personal attacks, and yell (type in caps) in several edit notes. I figured I'd email you directly instead of posting on the admin noticeboard. Spylab 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kafziel already blocked this user for 1 week for disruption. Enjoy the peace.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Thanks

Kind of amazing how old this material must be, with all the strange formats. We'll see what can be done... Cheers, Mackan79 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at consensus-building

In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing#Trying_to_establish_some_common_ground. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sada Abe

Hi, Jossi. I noticed your tagging the Sada Abe article for references yesterday. I also saw that the article was badly in need of sourcing and other work, and, as it happened, was busy at work on the article, offline, yesterday. I've begun a substantial rewrite/expansion of the article. There may still be a couple of unreferenced bits, and the sourcing I've done so far is heavily reliant on one book. I just wanted to let you know I'm still working on it, have located a couple more sources, and will use them to diversify the citations, and fill in sourcing where it is still lacking. Regards. Dekkappai 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Thank you for the decision not to block; but what edit warring is going on at Monarchy in Canada? The process hasn't been very congenial, certainly, but it seems to me that the issues have, none-the-less, been resolved. Or is this a pre-emptive measure? Just curous. --G2bambino 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors were reverting each other, so that was the basis for either block or protect. I chose the latter. If editors feel ready to resume editing, place they can place a request to unprotect a WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Relatives of Harry Potter

Hi Jossi, I'm wondering if you can do me a favour? I recently added Relatives of Harry Potter to my watchlist and since the release of Deathly Hallows it's become a nightmare. It's not so much that there's vandalism but there is an extreme level of good-faith edits by anon users which are just plain wrong - either factually incorrect, POV or OR. I wondered if you'd consider semi-protecting the page for a couple of weeks? I think this could deter a lot of the less-committed anon editors as they'd have to wait and go through the user creation process and the rest would hopefully get an account, wait and be open to taking instruction and reading some policies. Thanks Aula^TPN 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected for 10 days. Please welcome newbies and encourage them to edit judiciously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi, I surely will. Aula^TPN 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert

Just thought I'd drop a quick note, it seems my edit may have crossed with yours. The Sara Gilbert claims that were being added are completely valid and true (she's very open about it evidently, from my quick google search I just did), they were just unsourced and uncited. I've added a number of sources to that WP:BLP inquiry if someone wants to drop them into her article. (I still manage to mess up references, lol. It would take me a lot longer to add them, I'm sure.) :) ^Ariel♥Gold 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If there are good sources available, by all means add them. Just make sure that the sources are solid. For example mdb.com is not considered to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now, although I could have sworn I'd run into it being used as reference before, although I can't remember where. I did a simple search of "Sara Gilbert Melissa" and google popped up thousands of things, I only included a few, but it seems those too, are not "viable" resources. I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes "viable" resources online, but as with everything else, I'll just keep digging into the policies to try to figure it out. Thanks for checking! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really. You have all the info you need at WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) That link helps. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong deadline

Dear Jossi,

(I'm posting here because I wanted to make sure you see this posting straitway--there is some urgency...)

The article is up to thirty citations and is moving fast to completion but there's some more to do. Lisasmall put up a post on July 30 asserting the deadline you gave for adding citations was "on or about July 31. That doesn't sound right; Eight days ago, your posting had said

"Would a couple of weeks be enough? Material that is not sourced, cannot remain in an article for long, if challenged..."≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give less that the two weeks you had mentioned. This coming Sunday is the one day free of obligations for me this week, and by late that night I should have all the citations.

I've read all the sections carefully and their is nothing questionable factually--it's just a matter of looking up page numbers and writing out the citations. There is no way for Lisasmall to challenge anything in the article, she has admittedly never read any books by or about Armstrong.

In the meantime please note in your quote above, where it was stated "Material that is not sourced, cannot remain in an article for long, if challenged." Only one editor is driving this controversy, and she isn't challenging the veracity of what is there--there is no way she could fact check as she admittedly just discovered Armstrong's existence recently.

Jebbrady 08:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

hi Jossi

Hi, if you have time can you have a peep at the Potter's House page. I noticed you did some editing there and since then user Darrenss, who is a fomer church member, continues to delete links and make the page as negative as possible. He also goes through and edits against anything to do with the church always in a negative way, like "Wayman Mitchell" and "Harold Warner" etc. I suppose this is bias as most other church groups are alowed to have articles. Anyway just thought I would drop you a line and point that out. Cheers Sapienz 11:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

David Vitter tagging

Could you possibly give me some direction on this matter -- I abhor and avoid edit warring. On David Vitter, THF, author of Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems, tagged the page as {{unbalanced}} and then as {{npov}}. At Talk:David Vitter#unbalanced tag and Talk:David Vitter#NPOV tag I began discussions to determine what his concerns were. After citing the authority of Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and another essay, he stated that his concern was that the lack of biographical detail was dwarfed by the controversy section, not the controversy section itself. So I agreed to tag the two biographical sections with {{expand}} and {{npov}} but then he insisted that the entire article continue to be tagged. I again asked for specifics why he wanted to tag the entire article (see my last paragraph at Talk:David Vitter#NPOV tag). Today, he a) put back the article POV tag and added {{unbalanced}} tag, so now the article is "littered" with 6 tags and b) accused me of "vandalism" -- that I was "forbidden" from removing the article-wide tag (vs. the 2 section tags). From my perspective, my objective has been to identify his concerns and remedy them so that these tags could be temporary. He characterized my approach negatively at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#"last resort" bemoaning how he had to keep quoting "policy" (such as his essay) to get me to agree to a compromise -- a compromise that never materialized. I am feeling a bit bullied. I think my record would show I work well in a consensus environment. However, feel free to set me straight -- should I just stand back and not worry about this? Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to splatter so many tags in one article. I have consolidated the tags using the {{articleissues}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That guy was pissing me off. On the closing templates, just to clarify, use the long template before the section header, and the short template after the last comment. - Crockspot 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add my thanks for closing that one as well the other one. Much appreciated. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonel, the first sentence actually refers to the Richard Rossi situation. - Crockspot 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've revised my comment accordingly. The gratitude stands, of course! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do if no response to Rfc/user?

Hi Jossi,

What happens if the focus of an Rfc/user fails to respond to it? This Rfc/user was filed two weeks ago [[86]]. I know the user saw it because he immediately went in and tried to change the header [[87]]. On July 9th he blanked his user page and posted a note saying he was out of town for a few months, but then on July 14th and 15th he worked in earnest on the Sahaj Marg page, participated on some talk pages on July 16th, and then changed the Rfc/user page on July 17th, so he seems to be around.

I guess it's no big deal if he doesn't respond if he is happy with the articles in question.

My concern is that he has repeatedly made references to having "infinite patience" -- which sounds vaguely like a threat to me. (If you think I'm being paranoid please say so, but he makes this statement with reference to Sahaj Marg, i.e., "i will leave no stone unturned to make sure that true face of this group is exposed to the world. No matter how long it takes as i am ready to wait..."[[88]])

So, any any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no response to the RfC, it means that the dispute is no widely known or editors are not interested. I would suggest that you pursue WP:DR if you guys cannot find common ground on your own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Thanks for the quick response. I'm not sure if you understood my question?

There has been a response to the Rfc by other editors -- just not by the editor who's the focus of the Rfc (the one we perceive to be causing disruptions). All of the other editors are in agreement and on common ground. It sounds like you're saying if there are problems again, we would continue up the ladder of dispute resolution? (mediation has been tried, so it would be arbitration?) THanks, Renee --Renee 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics & related AfD

Hi Jossi,

I've seen your edits and admin work around a lot, and admired your fairness -- I especially liked your thoughts about the COI question earlier this year on the COI guideline talk page. Please look at my comments on the AfD talk page regarding what seemed to be WP:SYN quotes. I know why you removed them, I'd like you to know why I put them there. I could benefit a lot from any further thoughts you have about this, I"m sure one look at the AfD page itself told you all you need to know about how the discussion has gone. Thanks for the vote, I hope to hear back from you.--Rgfolsom 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OTRS action

Hi - I'm a little confused by your removals on Gorilla Repertory Theatre Company. I looked at the OTRS page, and I'm not seeing any vandalism or anything derogatory in what was removed. I believe everything was properly cited and true, as far as I know. The changes seem to be to emphasize that the company is currently in operation, but that was already stated in the article. The information removed mentions that the company was on hiatus for a few years, which is true. Is there any way for you to explain? I understand that whatever email was received must remain confidential, but surely we don't just remove verified info because somebody asked us to. --Brian Olsen 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was my call, given the complaint made at OTRS. I do not think that the text I changed and the short text I deleted has any negative impact on the article. If you think otherwise, please comment in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I also see in your user page that you worked with that company in the past, and that you state that you have tried to remain neutral in editing that article, which it is appreciated. Still, it would be advisable for you to refrain from re-adding that material, given the complaint. If you want material re-added, please provide a rationale in talk and I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All righty - I've placed my concerns on the article's talk page. I am indeed a former company member of Gorilla Rep. My concerns were that I might end up with a positive bias, so I guess I'm surprised that someone is complaining about something I wrote painting the company in a negative light, or giving false info (I assume). Please take a look - while my edits could certainly have done with some improvement, I really do think deleting the info has hurt the article. --Brian Olsen 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on the talk page (just notifying you here, in case you're not watching that page). --Brian Olsen 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback by your response to my comments - I was attempting to wheedle out areas where I may have inadvertently strayed from the sources, and you simply respond by warning me not to stray from the sources. Also, the warning to avoid editorializing concerns me, as I honestly don't believe I've done that. I understand my frustration comes partly from the fact that you obviously can't reveal what was in the complaint, but I'm honestly trying to improve the article, and I feel like I'm being accused of improper motivation. I'm going to ask another OTRS volunteer to take a look at this situation - would you please provide the ticket number on the talk page for that article? (I don't really know what that is, but the OTRS page indicates that it's necessary.) --Brian Olsen 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Regardless of the OTRS complaint, I would have acted the same way without the complaint, had I come across that article of my own volition. Improve the article if you wish, but stay close to the source and without interpreting them. Added OTRS ticket to article's talk page≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I've posted a message at the WikiProject Theatre talk page asking someone to adopt the Gorilla Rep article. Your comment suggesting I was editorializing in my edits still has me concerned, and I want to stay above board with everything. --Brian Olsen 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP Issues

Thanks for addressing IsraelXKV8R. Just wanted to make sure you took a look at William Schniedewind due to similar concerns. I leave it to your discretion. And thanks for clarifying the expansive nature of BLP for me! -- But|seriously|folks  04:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquatraveller

Deleting content again, calling it propaganda. Doesn't appear to like Augusta much... – Dreadstar † 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hey, I've been talking over at AdrianTM's talk page, where they have continually complained that your block was "unfair". I explained to them that I've only reverted twice (three times at most, depending on how you look at it), but they still want to hear a "logical reason" from an admin, so I'm assuming that anything I say defaults to "stupid". I'd appreciate it if you explained it to them, because they're obviously not listening to anyone else --L-- 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The user can contest the block and ask another admin to give a second opinion. It is all explained in the block notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They did, and it was rejected, that's not the point. They want to know why they were blocked, but not myself --L-- 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Rgfolsom (again)

Hi Jossi. Your response to an earlier 3RR is being disputed over at the 3RR board. I'm happy enough to live with whatever ruling you decide, but it seems clear to me that Rgfolsom has made the same revert 6 times in a 24 hour period. (Three of these are after your earlier ruling.) Ministry of random walks 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is now protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer on these apartheid articles

I think there are reasons to single-out these allegations. I just don't put the same weight on allegations made by two Peace Nobel Prices and a good number of very recognised people (and roughly 200 000 answers on Google) comparing to peusod-allegations made by a group of left-wing extremists (roughly 242 answers on Google / American has around 200 000 answers on Google as well but was deleted. Surprising and upsetting for us). Poppypetty 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haroon Rashid Aswat

Thanks, I appreciate it. My only interest in the article is the blp violations. I came across it while checking external links to prisonplanet.com, infowars.com, jonesreport.com, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TH has not withdrawn his stated intention to block me, without further warning, if he thinks the sources I use are unreliable. Rather, he has repeated this intention several times. But he hasn't given any meaningful clues as to which sources are going to trigger this threatened block. Any suggestions as to how to get this warning withdrawn, or to get someone to offer an explanation clear enough that it can be complied with? Geo Swan 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Church of God article and possible conflict of interest

Jossi, I read the policy on conflict of interest recently. I immediately thought of the current WCG article, which you already have flagged for lack of citations. Reading that article, I had sensed not just POV, but that something wasn't right about the way the article was being used, knowing that WCG leadership are in a very awkward position with egg on their face these days, after court documents were made public by their legal opponents, the PCG. After a book was published using internal memos, emails, and financial records obtained through the discovery process in the trial WCG v. PCG, called Raising the Ruins, I realized the entire history of the post Armstrong era had to be completely overhauled--the court records painted a crystal clear picture of a doctrinal transformation that was deliberately hidden so the WCG leadership could hold on to it's members and still collect vast amounts of tithes without in turn using the tithes to publish and distribute for free Armstrong's literature, or even continue the arts programs or humanitarian projects. No one knows where the money went==about a billion dollars over five years--far more income than had ever come in before.

So I put up a posting on the WCG article discussion page asking the active editors to comment on this incredible new cash of source material. There was no reply. The editors continued to reamin active. Months later there was still no reply. Eight months later and still no comments to numerous attempts I have made to drum up discussion about these internal emails, documents etc being made available which show everything. Not a peep.

(I realize third parties are the ideal for an encyclopedia, but we do have that in Raising the Ruins--the writer is a college instructor for what its worth.)

If you please would, consider looking into investigating a possible conflict of interest with that article. Thanks in advance for any action and insight you offer.

01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

You can post a request at WP:COI/N. As for this new book, it can be cited alongside other material. You cannot use just one source for an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not be getting involved in the part of the article that deals with the post-Armstrong era. If I did, I would never use just one source. If wikipedia did that, I wouldn't use Wikipedia. I meant that the history needs to be re-written figuratively--not the entire article. Actually, I wouldn't cite the book all that much, but perhaps I would, once or twice to augment the variety of sources, directly cite court documents and memos obtained through the court case--not doing original analysis or research, but only where no interpretation was involved--and I would include footnotes.

Jebbrady 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Are you sure?

Hi, Regarding your reversion to Wikipedia:Citing sources: I was under the impression that edits that have gain consensus on their respective talk pages can be requested via the editprotected template when the page is protected. I don't think that this edit was part of the previous edit war that caused the need for the protection nor is it particularly controversial. --Monotonehell 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit was not urgent and I saw no discussion. The editprotected template is for special use and I did not see that this was the case. That edit can wait until the protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a reasonable discussion carried out regarding it before the edit request was posted. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Scrolling_Reference_Lists:_Formal_Policy_Discussion --Monotonehell 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. You are welcome to restore the edit, but I would argue that it is not an urgent matter and that it can wait until protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, what clinches it is that it is entirely unrelated to the dispute that lead to the original protection (unlike the one tat I reverted over at Wikipedia:Footnotes). Circeus 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that edit was equally unrelated to the current dispute; Wikipedia:Ref reform has nothing to do with reference/punctuation order. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer relevant as another admin reverted back to the version containing that edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

RfC against User:Mikkalai and possible desysop

Hi Jossi, now you really know the true face of Admin Mikkalai. I wonder how decaying is Wikipedia now to have such brutal admin in such position. Not only that he responds with such brutality and rudeness to all the people but in the followings I will present you some real case with diffs for possible desysop of this rather very strange (possible ill) character.--69.62.141.29 08:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In short: let's take for example the Transnistria article. There if you're his opponent, then you'll be blocked. You'll be accuses to bo someone's sock by him, and eventually blocked. If he can't succeed this he protects the article so that you can't edit. On the talk page, he doesn't bring any arguments whatsoever.

Many people have complained about his behaviour: ask User:Dpotop [89], User:MariusM, User:JdeJ [90]...the list is very long..

From your own personal experience, even if you tried to be nice, you can't deal normally and civilized with this Russian brutal admin, who thinks he's in Russia, like Stalin. We live in a civilized culture, if he doesn't like let him stay in tundra with cows. We don't need such bias and offensive admins here. Let him be tought a lesson to be civil.

Moreover, in the case of article Transnistria there has been identified several persons to act for propaganda there for Russian interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence See the case of Arbcom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Tiraspol_Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Buffadren_blocked_as_abusive_sock-.2Fmeatpuppet

Buffadren blocked as abusive sock-/meatpuppet

Checkuser evidence has shown Buffadren is a likely sock-/meatpuppet of "MarkStreet", the editor of "Tiraspol Times". Challenged about the identity ([91]), he failed to provide a plausible explanation of how he was related to MarkStreet or to his organisation. Instead he continued to deny any relation with them ([92], [93], [94]). At the same time he has continued to lobby for the inclusion of external links to the "Tiraspol Times" ([95]). I have therefore blocked him for engaging in abusive sockpuppetry for purposes of hiding his conflict of interest with respect to that site and its political goals. Whether he is in fact MarkStreet or just a person working for the same organisation as him, he is part of a concerted astroturfing campaign trying to misuse Wikipedia for a political agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

astroturfing campaign supported by Mikkalai

That's the most dangerous thing he has done it.

And please look at the ArbCom decision regaring this campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria#Final_decision

"Astroturfing"

1) There is substantial evidence, published by reliable sources outside Wikipedia ([96], [97], [98], [99]), that there exists a professionally concerted campaign of promoting pro-Transnistrian opinions on the web in the fashion of "astroturfing". This campaign operates from several countries. Among the websites connected with this campaign is "www.tiraspoltimes.com". Editors professionally connected with tiraspoltimes have edited Wikipedia to promote this and related websites and the political views they represent. This includes User:MarkStreet, User:William Mauco and their sockpuppets.

Passed 9-0 at 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And now just look at the history of the articole Transnistria, from the last days...to see Mikkalai in action supporting the Russian campaign of Atroturfing.. [100] He does not talk on talk page rather he blocks you quick saying you're a sock or something...Actually, he's a very brutal person, not civilized and possible mental ill person with social human problems. I mean, he does not even know how to speak with the others nice and politely. Even that's one is sufficient for an RfC. You'll be supported by many others, including the Romanians, who have suffered from his Anti-Romanian views. He was even blocked for being anti-romanian once. [101]

RfC against Mikkalai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mikkalai this could be a good start --209.56.12.200 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing a user RfC on Mikkalai at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not thinking

Goddammit, how many times do I have to say this. I have explained it to you many times and you still don't get it. I'm not making up reasons here, your confusion is central to the debate. Please think about this:

The article is trying to establish the thesis that "A number of authors have leveled allegations of Chinese apartheid drawing analogies between some practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." There is no source that states this thesis. All your sources provide data which is presented to prove the thesis. It is fundamentally wrong for a Wikipedia article to present a thesis which is not stated anywhere else and try to prove it by presenting data. --Ideogram 21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Given enough rope, some people tend to knot the proverbial rope around their own neck. Your uncivil attitude and WP:DE warrants a closer look by the community. 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is just amazing that you cannot understand the words I write. Nothing you write addresses my point, which I have stated five times now. Concentrate on the point. Don't be distracted by my attitude, my behavior, my motives, whatever you think about me. This is the reason you are losing the AfD. I ask you to shut up and think and you cannot. Why is it so difficult for you to simply stop posting, walk away, calm down, and try to be rational about this? --Ideogram 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is obvious that the one that needs to cool-off and calm down is you, Ideogram. Maybe other editors will give you some feedback about your behavior, that is unacceptable. And yes, telling a fellow editor that is editing an article in good faith to shut the fuck up as you said above is distracting. I have a thick skin, but abhor verbal abuse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

use of "alleged" and "allegations"

Jossi, hi. Hope you're doing well. I noticed your presence on the AfD apartheid-China article, and your effort to move it forward. This discussion reminded me about what you were explaining to me back in the cults in literature piece. Was your point was that "alleged" is a loaded term that already degrades the neutrality of the presentation? (That is, simply adding "allege" would't sufficiently help give a fair picture of the group/person.) If so, in what way would you apply that thinking to the disputed China article and its title? Thanks!! HG | Talk 06:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG. Yes, there is a similar problem here. I made a proposal to redirects all "Allegations of XXXX Apartheid" to the main article Allegations of apartheid, in which all countries about which such allegations have been made can be featured and main viewpoints summarized. A better name needs to be found as well, as an ArbCom member recently said, an article with "Allegation of" in its title is de facto forfeiting NPOV. Maybe something along the lines of "Controversial race relations", "Controversial race practices" or "Practices compared to apartheid" or the like. The problem is that in the current heated envireonment there is not much good will around to contemplate such an approach. Hopefully, after a cool-off period, editors may be interested in pursuing that or a similar path. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure I could theoretically demonstrate the claim of the ArbCom member, but practically it's easy enough to suggest that a more neutral title may be coined. Sounds like we are quite close in thinking about this now, thanks again. HG | Talk 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Your proposal/thinking is germane to Centralized_discussion/Apartheid. However, would you agree that any such collection of country allegations needs to be reliably sources as a synthesis per WP:NOR? This synthesis concern was raised with China. And your raised it maybe with the cults and culture article? If you feel like replying, how about on my Talk? Anyways, take care. HG | Talk 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Jossi, thanks for the feedback. If you don't mind, if you feel a need to continue your debate with Ideogram, I would appreciate that it not be continued under my Note. I am concerned that it will distract people from the issues/q's raised by this Note, which I intend in good faith to be helpful to all. Also, you said "as long as you and others continue with not assuming the good faith of fellow editors...." I assume you are addressing G-Dett. Personally, I would ask that you strikeout this comment and, if need be, pursue it elsewhere. Otherwise, please make it clear in your text that you are accusing him and not me. Thanks again!! Pls reply to my talk if need be. HG | Talk 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Regarding your other note, I need to decline further analysis of the Content due to my time constraints alone. Hope you don't mind. Regards. HG | Talk 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say thank you

Thanx for cleaning up my page. I really appreciate that! I'm actually getting it again from the same guy on William Schniedewind's talk page. I ignore it (I don't engage the anonymous types), but he doesn't stop ranting on our pages. I appreciate you looking out for those of us who don't like to fight back. Thanx again. IsraelXKV8R 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

What do you think of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram? I am not yet an expert on sock puppets, but do you think this warrants CU? Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar, indeed. But not enough to make that assumption IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

French apartheid

I noticed your comment at Talk:Allegations of French apartheid. That exact same proposal is being discussed here if you would like to comment: Talk:Social_situation_in_the_French_suburbs#Merge_proposal_Allegations_of_French_apartheid_.3E_Social_Situation_in_the_French_suburbs. Lothar of the Hill People 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you yet again, but....

he's already reverted your changes. Is this an edit war yet? Can he be temporarily stopped? I'd reply on the talk page, but I don't respond to anonymous users. I'm happy to post a response if asked by a known uesr or admin. Or, if you want, you can revert his changes and protect the page. I'm sorry to have to bother you. I DO appreciate the effort you're making. Thank you. IsraelXKV8R 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given this user the last warning before a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thx again. I appreciate it.

I know you're probably sick of me by now, but it's still happening. After your two warnings, he's made a shi'ite load of edits, just trying to link Bill's page pack to his news blog, where he rips him. Instead of reverting though, he's re-adding, thus accomplishing the same thing. I'm tired of this. thanx for your help. IsraelXKV8R 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for the way I spoke to you. --Ideogram 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to edit while ignoring my concerns? --Ideogram 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to each one of your concerns by taking your feedback and editing the article accordingly. If I missed anything please let me know in ta article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I have stated on the article's talk that you have not made any edits responding to my last twelve postings. --Ideogram 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But I did. Check my edits. And if I missed anything, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

All of those twelve postings were made after your last edit at 18:05 so clearly you did not address them. Please read all postings with a timestamp of after 18:05 and either reply to them stating your objections or address them by editing the text. --Ideogram 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded. Please do no longer post here in regard of that article. That is what we have article's talk pages for. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your undo of a self-reversion on Landmark Talk page

Hi Jossi

I noticed that you just reverted last night's edits by Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum. Presumably this was because you saw it as a prima facie violation of the general policy not to remove content from talk pages?

The background situation in this case is that new this user had been using this talk page (and a couple of others) as a blog to sound off about some personal dissatisfactions. After representations from other editors, he seems to have come to realise that this was inappropriate and was self-reverting his own material.

Under the circumstances don't you think the deletion should stand? (alternatively, maybe it could be moved to an "off-topic archive", but that hardly seems necessary?). Regards. DaveApter 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DaveApter, personally, I'm being responsible and dropping the issues because some of them are being addressed, and whatever the resolution, I understand policy is that on Wiki, one is not to do first person research. What I've gleaned, I'll talk about off-site. I'm going to attempt to revert back as at this point, what I wrote is not wiki policy, as you stated.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arcana, and I applaud your actions to clear this up. DaveApter 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can simply archive that exchange rather than deleting it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

... on becoming an admin. And thanks for doing backlogged admin work, which is where I saw that you were one. And by the way, I really like the quote on your user page, "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." :-) --Coppertwig 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been an admin since October 15, 2005... Thanks anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick msg

Hi. I've enjoyed the conversation, which felt productive. Then it occurs to me that you've left it and maybe I'd said something inappropriate? Anyway, I wish there were a way of knowing in WP when such an exchange was ending. Thanks again for your good thinking and flexibility. HG | Talk 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) BTW, I've tried to offer supportive input on your proposal at Saudi Arabian allegations, in my own eccentric manner of course.

No, I have not "left" and I think your proposals are excellent. I will continue engaging in the talk pages of these articles. Kol Tuv, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama edits

Hi Jossi - you may not be familiar with the case of Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I was not edit warring - I was reverting the edits by sockpuppets of this community banned user, restoring the text to where it was before he started this latest set of assaults, as were other editors. Local667forOb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has already been blocked for being a Dereks1x sock, and although checkuser was not successful for Oprahwasontv, his behavior, edit style, and the choice of edits he made - reverting all of Local667's edits with misleading comments on talk and in edit summary, and commenting in a particular way - make it clear that he is another one of Dereks1x's over 25 socks, and I believe he should be banned next. I can provide you with diffs if you like, but it's quite a lot of work digging through the edits and I think that people who are familiar with the case will see that it's the same person, apparently occasionally logging in from a different location as he has been known to do in the past under other aliases. One of us will probably have to write up another AN/I note about this latest one. Please see Bobblehead's comments here. Jersyko has also worked extensively on this set of socks. Some of it is covered here, but there is a great deal more. I would appreciate not being blocked for following this procedure - please let me know if I can give you more information. Tvoz |talk 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama article

There is no edit war going on at the Barack Obama article. The only thing going on is a banned user using multiple sockpuppets to continue a pattern of tendentious editing and disruption that got him banned and the proper application of WP:BAN. Your mischaracterization of what is going on as an edit war and content dispute is just a continuation of the disruption Dereks1x seems to enjoy. If you have a problem with WP:BAN, take it up there and don't involve the Barack Obama article. Please return the article to it's previous semi-protection status and undo your changes to the talk page. Thanks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I will respond in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Casey William Hardison. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SamBC(talk) 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Richard Rossi: Thank you... more help, please?

Thank you for taking the time to examine the Richard Rossi entry. I was afraid no one was minding the store on this.

I am a novice here at Wikipedia. Though I use it as a resource often, I've not edited before. And my first go at this with Rossi was pretty ham-handed. Please forgive my mistakes in addressing this entry -- but there's a problem. In fact, it may be dangerously fraudulent. I don't know enough about any of this to really do anything about that: no skills, no time, no clue. I'm just trying to get the newspaper-reported facts into the entry somehow.

Why? It's a matter of principle.

The Richard Rossi article came to my attention while I was researching evangelist Amy Semple McPherson, more or less on a lark. I surfed through the links, and found a YouTube clip of a no-budget movie about her, and clicked on it. Then followed a link (in the comments, I think) to learn that Rossi was in some kind of a competition... so I googled him, and wound up at Wikipedia... among other places.

To say that Rossi has a checkered past is an understatement. I was stunned to see a vanity entry about him, adulatory in tone, when I had just read that he had been convicted of aggravated assault for beating his wife into a coma. The trial was sensational, much-covered by the local press. It made the wires, and because of the attempted murder happened shortly after OJ's Bronco ride, it was a cause celebre, in a small, very weird way. The newspaper accounts are really pretty good reading.

It's dispiriting to see how his biographical entry has been abused to conceal his violent, criminal past. I was a real dummy to have marched into his entry, hacking the prose and overstating the case.

But the bottom line is that Rossi either deserves no biographical entry -- or it should focus on this episode of attempted murder/ aggravated assault... It's his only real claim to fame.

Please read the Talk section at Richard Rossi for all the details, painstakingly enumerated with links and publication dates.

Thanks for your attention. --Achristiansoldier 04:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Have you taken some time to read our content policies? In particular read WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You may also want to read WP:RO. If you have any questions about the nuances of these, please do not hesitate to ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack S. Bernstein appears to be an interested party. I've left him a talk-page note on the WP:COI policy. Of course, WP:BLP/N should be adhered to, and, as I explained Achristiansoldier on my talk page, other editors who deleted material did nothing wrong, but Bernstein's conflict of interest should be recognized in future editing disputes on the page. I've rewritten the page to fully source and NPOV the controversial claims; can you spotcheck it to ensure that it complies with WP:BLP/N? Thanks. -- THF 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Venkatavunnava

Hello Jossi, I've tried leaving messages on this editor's user page (as I also noticed you have done) but without any reply. Their edits are repeatedly obstructive, and show no sign of wanting to change the pattern. Is there any further action you would advise? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If he/she persists we will have no choice than to block. Keep and eye on it and let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The editing pattern has continued in the same vain. I have left a firmer warning message on their talk-page today. They may even be a sockpuppet of another user, as usually, even vandals would think of arguing on the talk page? Gouranga(UK) 08:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately after repeated warnings the edits continue. See [102] and [103]. The editor has made no attempt to enter into any discussion, or seemingly to understand Wikipedia's policies? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Articleissues

Hey Jossi, what do you think of the new proposed template design. I changed it around a bunch (i.e. made it so we didn't use a crappy template with a white background for everything), but I still think I like how the template was before anyone changed the design. Typical cleanup templates aren't meant to be hidden - which is exactly why they go on the main page rather than the talk page, and putting in a scroll box only makes them hidden and cluttered. But I'll let you have your own opinion--danielfolsom 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I will reply at template's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama

The article need serious oversight. Could you mediate or do some other action to solve the incivility problem. As far as edit warring, there are only a few issues that need discussion, like if we should tell only half of the truth about his union endorsement, the Junior name, the Oprah part.

So far, most others have just revert, been hostile, and not explained. I have explained my rationale. It would be progress if a 3rd party like you could help. I am open minded but I can't deal with people who don't explain their reverts but simply yell "sock" in unison.Oprahwasontv 02:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just avoid editing directly. Make your comments in talk page and ask editors to address your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Will the hostile editors stop editing directly and discuss? If so, I am willing to do this. What I am asking is if you can mediate/help or what ever word is appropriate. Leaving now will just make the situation worse. Thank you for your efforts.

Normally I would think the issues in dispute are not that big but the hostility and incivility is mind boggling. Oprahwasontv 02:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just make your arguments clear, and if the arguments are solid and compelling, they may be listened to. It is not helping that you are making edits that are very similar to some editors that were banned for disruption. The burden is on you, I am afraid, to deonstrate that you are here in good faith and care about the aims of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that he is not. His response was this utter nonsense. Check the history, Jossi. It's the identical pattern. Tvoz |talk 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comment

sorry about that I removed the rant and put up a proper dispute resolution thingy I was frustrated and went too far  :) Esmehwp 06:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of unrecognized countries‎

On the talk page of the article "List of unrecognized countries‎", a user with various IP addresses and a new user account called JUSTICE FOREVER has placed a lot of off-topic material that seems to me to be in breach of all POV policies. Could I ask you as a random admin to take a look (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus) and see whether it would be permissible to delete some of these comments, which seem to me to be quite offensive and not necessary to the topic? It needs someone coolheaded and uninvolved to deal with, if possible, as I fully admit that I'm not impartial myself. Cheers Vizjim 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

XXX apartheid

Hi Jossi,
I think we never met before on wp:en.
I left the debate about israeli apartheid before you joined it ;-)
Long and hard topic.
I have read some of your comments on the talk page and I think we are on the same wavelength concerning all this.
I hope the ArbCom will agree to analyse the content issue at least as context of the dispute but I am quite sure it will not as it was ready not to accept the case.
Good luck anyway !
Alithien 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,
And I think we can say we are not exactly the same : (excerpt from my former user page)

--- Whatever this could mean here are the results of the test about our "world's view" I performed several times :

   existentialist : 85-100%
   materialist : 90-95%
   modernist : 80-90%
   post-modernist : 70-75%
   cultural creative : 40-50%
   fondamentalist : ~20%
   romanticist : 0-20%
   idealist : 0-20%

I think I am more romanticist and idealist than what the test concludes. --- Alithien 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

Would you mind taking a quick look at this. It seems to be a fairly significant change to the guideline that went unnoticed for almost two months...and I think it's important enough to put back in, even while the article is being protected. Unless there was a consensus that I'm missing on it's removal. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Social situation in the French suburbs#There was no consensus for this merge

Hello !

6SJ7 alleges that you may have voted "oppose if the merge is only applied to the French article, merge if all articles are merged" as him, and uses that point to say that there was no consensus. Can you please state if you do support the merge proposal of the French article alone or not ?

Please answer on my talk page (:

Thanks !

NicDumZ ~ 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will stay out of this one... But I do not disagree on merging these articles, if involved editors consider it the best way to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Erna raid

You tagged this article recently, please explain what the issue is on the article talk page. Tags without accompanying explanation on the talk page are no help and will be removed. Martintg 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is self explanatory: unreferenced material, and original research. I commented in talk, if that would help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you place inline "cite" tags against those assertions you believe to be unreferenced. Martintg 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Help for discussing

Hi,
Would you agree helping me in discussing the neutralisation of both these articles : 1948 Arab-Israeli war with user:Isarig and Haj Amin al-Husseini with user:Zeq ?
Alithien 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Morgan

Hello Jossi,

I see that the last time the IP editing ban was placed on this article it was you who put it there. I was wondering if you could do that again. Three ips within 36 hours have tried to start the same editting war that was in place two months ago.

Thank you for any help you can provide. -Kirkoconnell 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Jossi, there is actually a WikiProject called Dravidian civlizations. That is why I have created the Category:Dravidian civilizations and to put everything in sub-categories under that title. Sub-categories would be Dravidian people, Dravidian architecture, etc. Please let me know what you think. Regards. Wiki Raja 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I could use your help if you have time

When you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a person that believes on certain racists ideas, that slowly emerge as the arguments progresses. I will weigh in if I see that I can contribute, but I think you and others are doing quite well already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your opinion on this

Hi, Jossi. I'd like the opinion of a Wikipedia veteran like yourself on this decision I just made to delete some material. [104] Thanks! TimidGuy 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Granted, it is a bit of trivia. But it is harmless. Many articles have a "In popular culture" sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will restore. TimidGuy 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

First, I'd like to apologize to you for a certain heated exchange we had some weeks back at UCFD. I sometimes get passionate about stuff, and I overdid it. That being said, I'd like to caution you about the POV-pushers on the White people article, as trhey are very good at baiting people into a revert war and using inappropriate warning templates (and getting away with it too!). I'm thinking this may need to be escalated beyond mere MedCab into something else (looks like Medcab will be turned down by them anyway), but I'm not sure what the next step should be. In any case, I'm loath to let them undo a day's work by nearly a dozen editors, but I'm nearing my 3RR limit myself, and I don't want to be accused of "gaming the system" by cutting it too close (what was done to Muntuwandi). In any case, your help on the article is appreciated.--Ramdrake 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk?

Hi Jossi,

I'm just wondering if you could talk to User:ConfuciusOrnis. He's been edit warring along with Antelan on the Psychic surgery and other articles, and being uncivil. Following me around. I warned him and got this response. These aren't all the diffs, I think he was uncivil on the talk page a few more times. All they do, along with the summaries, is give a flavor:

[105]

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

obstructionist troll —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Come to think of it, your opinion in that article would be appreciated. Here is the currnet lead:

Psychic surgery is a phenomenon that originated in the 20th Century and has been deemed a form of medical fraud.[1][2][3] During psychic surgery, practitioners appear to perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools.[3] They say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision.[4] Psychic surgery is most prevalent in its countries of origin: Brazil and the Philippines.

Psychic surgery has been denounced by the US Federal Trade Commission as a "total hoax",[2] and the American Cancer Society maintains that psychic surgery may cause needless death by keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care.[3] Professional skeptics say that such paranormal talents do not exist, and argue that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery.[5][6]

I kinda think we should define first. Then blast it (; –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User inquiry

Since we don't really share POV etc on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I thought I would ask you about User:Alithien, because I am increasingly concerned he is just trolling.

For example, after I reverted some reformatting he did to the talk page, with a nice, civil explanation, he just went around and accused me of WP:OWN.

Am I over reacting? Or is he not being productive? I am specially worried because he put about two days ago in his talk page a message saying "This editor will not contribute any more to wikipedia." but he continues to intervene in talk pages and in some cases articles. I do not think he is being productive, regardless of POV. What do you think? Thanks!--Cerejota 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota,

let's forget your personal attacks.

concerning my talk page, it is true I am a little bit fed-up by wp, particularly wp:en.

But about my neutrality and productivity, just read this article and the talk page that goes with it :

1947–1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine

Until yesterday evening, any single information in that article was from me and wikipedia can benefit of this thanks to the support of user:it's-is-not-a-genitive who translated this.

Thank to this, half of the article concerning the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is not a battlefield anymore and thanks to this, good editors come back and work on it (I mean, people who knows about the topic and who have books written by scholars concerning this).

We are currently working on the translation of fr:massacre de Qibya (again for which I am the main contributor), which is a featured article on wp:fr but pov-disputed here.

So, please, don't come and talk about "productivity" with such sentences such as : "I do not think he is being productive, regardless of POV"; I think he is trolling.

Alithien 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your civility warning

I do not think it's fair to be given a civility warning at the request of your friend whom you quote on your user page when in fact he was guilty of civility violations actually directed at another editor (called me a "bullshit-artist") and in fact my statements were not clearly incivil. I was providing my impression of the aesthetics of a collage ("vomitous" meaning it had made me fell ill like I said - editors often give aesthetic opinions on editorial matters ranging from "disjointed" or "bad layout" to "unappealing" or "confusing" to perhaps stronger opinions) and my factual interpretation of the content of the collage ("degenerate" is to my knowledge a technical term for the albino at least). I'm not clear which part of what I said is prohibited. At any rate, if there are to be civility warnings for the perhaps minor incivility it should be given to both sides. At this point I do not think you should consider yourself an uninvolved party. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any lack of civility exhibited in that page, besides your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How is calling someone a "bullshit artist" and telling them not to get "hysterical" not incivility? How is applying the term "degenerate" to a photograph of a person with a genetic disease incivil? It's factual. Is there a list of terms that are civil or not? I guess I will call other editors bullshit artists and hysterical whenever I like, but refrain from applying accurate labels to photographs of non-editors with genetic diseases. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear on one thing: I do not like what you say, the way you speak, and your overall editing attitude. I am willing to address you only because this is Wikipedia. And that is the only reason why others do the same. Just be extremely cautious with your language. And do not post in my talk page anymore. Use the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page and you are being incivil. You also cannot explain your warning so I will file it under "hysterical" "bullshit" which is apparently the appropriate label for editors one disagrees with. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK. As for your comment related to albinos being "degenerate", how do you know what is the color of my skin? What if I am an albino myself? You cannot use Wikipedia talk pages to make such opinions public, you can use your blog or a personal home page to do so. I am saying this again: be extremely cautious with your language and the way you express yourself in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dashanami Sampradaya

You had given a better classification of 10 Sampradāyas of Dashanāmi than exists in the current version ; the current version shows 12 Sampradāyas which does not match with the name Dashanāmi. Will you like to pay attention to this problem ? -Vinay Jha _Talk 07:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'Thank you for your email. I apologise, I did not understand this site. I was an 'angry editor....as you could see my spelling was awful. It's hard to see something in print that all journalist around the world are using as fact even though nothing is backed up. How do I write to your talk page rather than being on a message board? Best wishes F x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fedupwiththis (talk • contribs).

First draft

I've completed a first draft regarding the first/second class distinction idea. Take a look over it and leave some thoughts if you would. Make adjustments or tweak it, if you have some ideas. Cheers! Vassyana 08:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I surely take a look and see if I can improve upon your brilliant prose! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• chuckle* You flatter too much! I've made some significant revisions since the last feedback and some additional thought. Let me know what you think of the latest draft. Vassyana 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made another revision. Let me know how it's shaping up. Vassyana 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of 20 citations on Armstrong page

Dear Jossi, An unknown editor has come in and has deleted 20 citations, and actually removed details in the references that directed readers and editors exactly where to look in the linked sources for the reference. Can I revert this? In our effort to resolve the controversy on the article and work out a consensus, it having a destabilizing effect (e.g. I reverted the whole thing tonight but that undid some good stuff someone else did to get a proper template for the citations). It's a little frustrating and just seems to be complicating things unnecessarily.Jebbrady 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Hey Jebb. Look, I cannot babysit that article... Find some common ground with other involved editors, and if that is not happening, please pursue dispute resolution. I am willing to help here and there, but I am not on call... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, FYI, dispute resolution has now reached arbitration. Thank you for your help here July 21 and 25. I filed a WQA on July 21 here and I stepped away from the article myself July 31 to provide Jebbrady with the time he asked for to revise it (you had suggested a couple of weeks; he wanted "a month or better"). You had originally blocked one of his socks for vandalism in March which is described by EdJohnston in the July 21 SOCK report I filed here. I filed a second SOCK report August 17 here. The article in contention has now been submitted for arbitration by SarekOfVulcan here. -- Lisasmall | Talk 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the arb case is still open and there's an RFC/user case now open at this link. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Way off topic

Hey, your DA gallery has nothing since 2005. Have you stopped painting, or just stopped uploading? "Oluwa" is my favorite. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please visit Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) and contribute if you would like

I'm asking the major contributors to Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) to see my request for participation in a research review leading up to a significant rewrite of the article. Please take a moment to see my comments at the top of that talk page and reply on that talk page. VisitorTalk 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Did you know the policy page has been protected for several days, and there is a heavy debate in many threads on the talk page about whether the policy is too strict and people should be able to make their own inferences from primary sources in writing articles? When you have a chance, check it out, see if you can make sense of it. That it is protects - and there is talk of unprotecting it though I see no consensus on the page - concerns me and it bears watching and perhaps strategic comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was in a Wikibreak due to travel and missed all that. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that is necessary. From time to time people challenge established policies and that is part and parcel of what Wikipedia is. I do not see that the challenge is such that requires an RfC, but I have not been involved enough during tghe last week to make that assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the issue still worries me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Vassyana's proposal? It may just do the job... See below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've significantly revised my proposal, in an attempt to reflect legitimate concerns raised on all sides on the policy talk page. A major change is dropping the language discussing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I try to rely on the "reliable third-party publications" distinction made by Wikipedia:Verifiability that has a clear and exceedingly broad consensus. Please take a look over the new draft and let me know your thoughts (User:Vassyana/Sources proposal). I'm interested in soliciting some feedback before submitting the revised proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very good. Why don't you offer it in the NPOR discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for such a warm endorsement. However, I wanted to get a few eyes to look over it to make sure the idea had some merit before creating another huge thread. :-P Vassyana 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is to the the above

I am working on a period film article, and there has been some back and forth regarding the various historical inaccuracies of the film (and no, we aren't talking about A Knight's Tale or any Arthurian flick, thank God). Another editor's position is that the historicval inaccuracies are contradicted by historical fact, and that citation pointing out the actual accuracy is not synthesis, as it is pointing out the truth. My interpretation of Synthesis is that we need to find reviews or articles that address the historical inaccuracies within the scope of the film, tying the two together - otherwise, we cannot include them. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Arcayne. Most definitively, we cannot use Wikipedia to publish corrections of historical facts presented in a film, unless these inaccuracies are already described in published sources which are reliable. Let me know the name of the article and I may take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are darn scary - I got knocked offlinefor a bit by the gf, and wasn't able to get back to you. Yet you found it easily enough. Thanks for the assist. I really appreciate it. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR favor

Hi. I have created a new page, Wikipedia: Proposal to replace No Original Research. Can you go over the talk on the now too long talk page for NOR and identify any talk you think belongs with this nascent proposal, and move it to its' talk page? I will ask Dreadstar and BrigitteSB to do the same. I have already done a fair amount of refactoring at the talk page, and given that I just created this new proposal page, I would rather trust someone else's judgement as to what talk, specifically, to move. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal ended

Due to feedback, I realize the proposal really does encompass a lot more than just original research, despite the intent. I raised the issues appropriate to reliable sources at the reliable sources talk page. I am still pondering in regards to NOR. Cheers! Vassyana 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The material there is quite good, Vassyana. I think that it would be a good idea to move it to the Wikipedia mainspace, as an essay. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

More NOR

Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks [112] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of "rewriting" the policy has all but died... In any case, what are the main changes in your proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly rewritten the whole first half, not changing any content, just trying to make it clearer. So obviously I was hoping you would check my rewrite to see if it makes sense and is an improvement - but while I haven't touched the second half I think several editors think it is overwrought and perhpas it deserves attention too. Maybe it is a waste of time, maybe people have petered out - but wbfergus is definitely working on his own revision, and I think Vannyasa is too, and I do not think COGDEN or others are going to go away. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Craig

Help. I'm at my wits end. A few editors insist on including posts that have nothing to do with editing the article. I've tried warning them, removing the posts, etc., but they keep insisting on removing POV edits (that do, at least tangentially, mention editing the article) that they disagree with and inserting their own. What's a poor editor like me, who only wants to keep the discussion about the article, to do? Pairadox 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue warnings, refer people to WP:NOT and WP:TALK, and be patient... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you look at User:Wandering Star's post to my talk page[113] and this edit summary[114]? I issued a NPA warning but I doubt that it will stop the wildly inaccurate attacks. Pairadox 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the advice. I needed to hear it from somebody else. Pairadox 14:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, you removed the {WikiProject LGBT} studies tag on the Talk page. This tag does not identify him as an LGBT person, but without a doubt deals with LGBT issues. Please do not remove the tag as it is pertinent. Thanks. --David Shankbone 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it is related... Please ask the editors involved in that project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained its relation on the Talk page. --David Shankbone 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask the editors involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As an editor for WikiProject LGBT, it was already discussed and is found on that talk page. --David Shankbone 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see much of an agreement there... In any case, I leave that to you and other interested editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indymedia

It is late for me, but I took a look at it looks good. I will try to look more carefully tomorrow. I have to admit, with embarassment, that I know nothing about Wikimedia Indymedia. How much should I know? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the slip above :) See Indymedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth. http://www.indymedia.org/ . As you can see, a pretty different approach than Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

hi!

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

--Wandering Star 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your vastly cool userpage tabs

Jossi, in slavish imitation, I have tried to add tabs to my userpages:

• User:Lisasmall
• User:Lisasmall/Sandbox
• User:Lisasmall/Sandbox 2
• User:Lisasmall/Sandbox 3

but apparently my imitation was not slavish enough. I thought I was precise! Can you take a peek and tell me how I messed up? Something buried in "preferences", perhaps? You have my permission to tweak, if you feel like it. Conversely, if you don't have time to look, I'll understand. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I think I have this figured out. I need to leave your name in the template, right? Before the first pipe? (Because you're the creator?) That's what I did, and it works now. If this is an inappropriate or unwelcome use of your template, please let me know. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:Phaedriel, one of the nicest Wikipedians around, which was kind enough to create the page layout for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi, will do. :) -- LisaSmall ^T/C 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to remove links

Even if the article dharmic religions is kept, then I will argue for removing links, because it is an obscure neologism and totally out of place in articles such as human or even Hinduism. Andries 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will only change my opinion about dharmic religions if reputable sources are shown that threat the subject. Andries 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do as you wish. Other editors may give you additional feedback about your editing behavior, about which my opinion you already know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already recieved support from quite a lot of contributors for my latest edits. I think I am heading in the right direction. Andries 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

VP

Criteria such as that are supposed to be followed, the 250 edits is a guideline, and it really comes down to the moderator to decide if a user can be trusted. Is there a particular concern you have? I am not actively moderating, but I would be happy to look into any problems. As long as it isn't AmiDaniel I can probably do something about it. :) Prodego ^talk 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regulations

Give me exact chapter and verse of what regulation says that I don't have the right to add or delete content to my own user page. If you cannot, then back off. Wandering Star 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the right to remove content from your talk page, with the exception of admin warnings in circumstances as the one you have brought upon yourself. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. Leave the warning for a while, demonstrate that you have intentions to change your editing behavior and then delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Define a while. And while we're at it, define where it says precisely how long it has to stay on there, or what right you have to yank my privileges for editing my own talk page. I want chapter and verse, from the regulations, not your POV opinions on the matter. Back it up, or back off. Why should I wear the scarlet letter just becaiuse you've got a personal dislike for me, and have decided to attack me personally by abusing your admin privileges? Do you need to lose your privileges that badly? Wandering Star 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Soapbox" on the Larry Craig talk page

Could you again place a notice on the soapbox that User:Wandering Star is engaging in? The user insists on continuing an off-topic discussion about what you and others already said is not warranted (and appropriate) for improving the article. If not you, then another disinterested editor and/or administrator needs to have the involved parties move the off-topic discussion off of the article's talk page. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks with appreciation for posting the message. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indymedia

Hi, as you seem to have adopted the Guide for Indymedia users for cleanup, I thought you should know I created WP:INDYGUIDE as a shortcut for the essay. Wl219 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion sought on suggestion at Talk:List of Latter Day Saints

Hi, I'd appreciate your opinion on a suggestion I made at Talk:List of Latter Day Saints to hopefully balance out the BLP concerns with the concerns of the editors who are upset about losing so much work in one fell swoop. Thanks in advance, alanyst ^/talk/ 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Latter Day Saints

Hi, jossi. Thanks for responding to the BLP concerns at List of Latter Day Saints. The problem is, the entries I removed were only the beginning: the subheads later in the list also contain large numbers of BLP violations -- it's just taking me a while to sort through each entry to see if the person is living. In my opinion -- yours may differ -- entries about dead people can remain while interested parties search for sources. I rather doubt anyone is going to undertake this work, in which case those entries may also have to face removal in their turn -- but I don't feel the need to be unduly aggressive on this point, and am satisfied to focus efforts on removing BLP violations. Thanks again. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, jossi. Because you're already somewhat familiar with the situation, would you consider having a look at this AN/I report?

To follow up on the List of Latter Day Saints problem: despite some misgivings and the fact the topic lies so wildly beyond my customary areas of interest, I agreed as a show of good faith to attempt to help find reliable sources that would justify restoring some of the deleted entries. I hope the effort doesn't all come to nothing over a disputed definition of "reliable". My own tends to be a little fastidious. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Obscure newspapers" discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, Jossi. Since you were the editor who restored the phrase "or in obscure newspapers" to WP:BLP, I hope you'll join the discussion at WT:BLP#"Partisan websites or obscure newspapers". Many editors, including me, feel that the phrase is too poorly defined to be useful; however, the intent of the policy is clear, and I've suggested another wording which I hope will serve the same function with less ambiguity. I look forward to your response. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection conflict

This here wasn't intended, I assure you. It was an annoying protection conflict. Acalamari 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please reconsider your latest revert in WP:BLP. I think it leaves mistakenly-defined statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. If you are going to revert to a more "stable" version of the policy, then please revert to a less problematical one that has greater consensus than that one does. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For my explanation of the mistakes in the language (particularly "dubious sources"), please see: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. (I'm working on other projects, so please do not respond on my talk page. Thanks again.) --NYScholar 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

prot

could this be protected for the same period of time? IntelliTXT. He's only going to continue the same pattern of trying to push material unsupported by the citation there.--Crossmr 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about the editing

You do realise how many people are currently using this IP? It's a school. I think it'd do well to just start laying down the banhammer. 170.185.30.19 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Jake

If vandalism continues from that IP, anonymous editing may be blocked. See template added in that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Thanks for stepping in. I was drawn to the article while on vandal-patrol and was trying to help out the regular editors there, it was an interesting experience..anon just couldn't quite seem to get the whole picture...;) Dreadstar † 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That happens ... way too often, unfortunately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi!

Are you around? Do you have a second to peek at something for me? The article Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel was just created, and I'm concerned about this article for a couple reasons. First, and most obvious, the two person title. Second, it cites no sources, but has some pretty negative statements in it. Even if they're true and verifiable via the links, neither of those I think qualify as WP:RS. I'm unsure what to do with this article, as I can't really say that it isn't notable, but I'm concerned about the WP:BLP issues that may be relevant to the article. I'd really appreciate you taking a peek and seeing what could or should be done. Thanks ever so much! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The creator of the article has had at least 3 previous articles deleted, so should understand the criteria fairly well. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I don't know if you had a chance to check out this article, or if you're too busy, should I request another editor take a peek at it? I don't want to bother you or take up your time if you don't have a lot to go around, and I'd be happy to see if someone else can assist. Or, if you think there's no issue, then I can just forget about it. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ariel. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and added some sources, but not sure it is encyclopedic. Not each and every crime committed warrants an article, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate to either split the article into two, since it is about two separate people, or to create separate pages for each name and redirect to that page? (And thank you for taking a peek at it, I noticed you've made some very appropriate changes, thanks again for your time! And I would probably agree with your assessment of the thought that it is not really encyclopedic.) ^Ariel♥Gold 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I redirected their names to the current article. We could place on AfD and see what others think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, if you want to add it I'll put my remarks as well, I really think if we added every person who created a crime, we'd end up with... well, a mess? lol. While having been sentenced to the death penalty may make them more notable, there are plenty of others who have had such sentences and aren't here, so I'm not sure this article contributes anything really valuable. And again, thanks for taking a look and helping! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we put the article in AfD, it would be wise to do a bit of research to know if there is additional media coverage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Digging around now, there actually is quite a bit of recent news coverage, CNN, Fox news, hrmm. Well, I'll add those refs to the article and then let it stand, sound good? ^Ariel♥Gold 22:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if chime in. IMHO this would fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. It's the nature of news agencies to report crimes, extensively, and for an encyclopedia to report "long-term historical notability of persons and events." This article seems to be the former. Pairadox 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind if you chime in ... Not at all... Let's place it in AfD and see what others have to say. Would you do the honors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added several references, in addition to those you added, but I would still agree with both our initial assessment, and Pairadox's assessment, that it may be skating that thin line between keeping or not. I'll watch for the AfD and chime in when appropriate. And thank you again Jossi, for taking the time to help with this, I really appreciate it. I know we haven't really talked, but I've seen you and bumped into you around, and I've had respect for your work, so I thought I'd take the chance that you wouldn't mind me coming to you with this. Thanks again, ^Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Any time.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew chiming in wasn't a good idea - I hate filing AfDs, so much so that I've avoided it. <sigh> That's what I get for having your talk page on my watchlist. (unchecks box) I'll get started on the AfD... Pairadox 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

HEY!! I go to all the trouble of rereading the sources, double checking facts and writing up the AfD only to encounter an edit conflict and discover you've already filed one?!? Pairadox 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Wandering_Star#Warning

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note (unrelated to the dispute) about the pseudo "Wr4" template you added there. Removing warnings is NOT considered vandalism, per the current consensus. I personally frown when someone does that, but this is my personal opinion. So please avoid using this kind of templates (Template:Wr4 has been deleted long ago, incidently). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing admin warnings in circumstances such as this one, is considered disruptive. I will continue using that or similar warning when I see that is applicable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, 'Renaissance Man' or not, you are just as bound by the rules of Wikipedia as I or anyone else is. You don't get to invent new rules. Jimmy Wales gets to do that, and you sir, are no Jimmy Wales. Wandering Star 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point completely. Jimmy Wales does not invent any rules. The policies and guidelines are created and maintained by the community. I would appreciate it if you take the time to 'read what these polices are, and stop trolling ,my page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My dear Jossi

Thank you for your kind words, my dear Jossi :) As always, it's wonderful to read you, and to know you're doing fine yourself (I pray that you are). Tho I wouldn't certainly define my present as AOK, I'll survive, specially because of the kindness of good friends like you, and that's the only thing that matters. I seriously doubt I'll be contributing as much as I used to in the very near future; but one thing for certain is, I'll remain in contact in case I don't, you have my word for it. Bless you for being a beacon of light when you're needed the most, my sweet J :) Love, Phaedriel - 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are too kind... My best wishes for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge conflict.

Jossi, could you look at a situation for me? An editor started a merge discussion. Two editors voted to merge, and two voted to oppose the merge[115]. The nominating editor then closed the discussion and merged the articles[116][117]. I have reverted his edits[118][119][120], but it seems likely that he will enter into an edit war with me. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Goethean. I don't know how can I help... Maybe start an RfC if the dispute continues? Editwars seldom achieve anything, as you know... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for some guidance regarding whether I was following procedure. I can open an RfC. — goethean ॐ 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the merge was made without consensus. As such, it would be best to undo the merge and open the discussion to other editors via an RfC. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Was there consensus for this? If so, I'll self-revert. Dreadstar † 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which version, the newer or the older? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The older version, I was asking about Cogden's edits...I didn't think there was consensus for his changes..but since he was claiming consensus, I thought I'd better double-check on the off-chance that I missed something....but it's all been cleared up - no consensus, so my reversion was correct. Mikka has reverted Cogden's reversion of my reversion...<sigh> Dreadstar † 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Categories case on WP:AN/I

Hi, Jossi. I've contacted you because you're knowledgeable about WP:BLP. I submitted an AN/I report here that's tangentially related to the issue you dealt with at List of Latter Day Saints. I'm having difficulty getting any traction on the matter, chiefly, I think, either because of unfamiliarity with the policy or else active hostility towards it. "I don't like this policy anyway, so who cares who violates it?" is the feeling I'm getting.

The issue involves an editor's disruptive restoration, contrary to WP:BLP#Categories, of religious-affiliation category tags to several articles after I had attempted to direct his attention to the policy and made him aware that the addition of the category tags violated it -- actions which resemble WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- followed by a spite-revert of the slew of WP:BLP violations at List of Latter Day Saints, the violations you later removed. It's not the initial (though evidently knowing) violations that are the crux of the issue, but the deliberate restorations of violations after being made aware of the policy that seem to me to constitute disruption.

In contacting you I hope I can involve somebody more knowledgeable than I am about the policy, and someone who could evaluate whether I'm representing the relevant policies accurately and whether there is a basis for the complaint.

The user in question is evidently currently inactive for a short time, but as he has yet to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with his actions, I strongly suspect he will resume them when he returns. I was hoping that administrative intervention via an AN/I report might persuade him not to go on violating WP:BLP -- not just knowingly, but now, I'd argue, also disruptively. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Jossi. I think I may have inadvertently left you with the impression that there is still an ongoing problem at List of Latter Day Saints, which was not my intention. In fact, since your earlier messages, the only entries involving living people that have been added have been accompanied by inline cites, so the situation is much improved thanks to your help and there is at present no need to caution editors there.

I was actually trying in my previous message to draw your attention to an AN/I report here that's related to the problem -- a problem that has for the moment subsided because the editor in question appears to be temporarily inactive. My purpose had been to encourage you to respond to the AN/I report in the hope of preventing the editor from resuming the disruption once he becomes active again.

I apologize if I somehow accidentally left you with the wrong impression about my reason for contacting you. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Hill

Thank you for blocking the said article. It was heavily vandalized and now it won't be!--DJ^{Speak your mind...} 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic religion article

You shouldn't have deleted the Dharmic religions article. In the talk pages, I had cleary shown that the term is recognized and accepted by western groups and/or scholarly references. It was NOT a wikipedia invention. You can google the term and see for yourself. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete it. In fact I have requested a deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8#Dharmic_religion. You are welcome to comment there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Unndue weight

If you think that I gave undue weight to a certain viewpoint then at least support your argument by pointing out that a statement is made by only few scholars. I took great care to use only statements in the summary that were made by at least three scholars. If you do not try to do so then your arguments make the impression of POV pushing and a variant of I do not like/believe/agree with what reputable sources have stated. Andries 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We both know that we have very different tastes and viewpoints on many subjects and we will never agree. So all discussions between us should focus on sources. Merely saying that there is "undue weight" when there are many sources supporting a statement is not going to change my mind. Andries 07:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in changing your mind, Andries. Please discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Paypal protection

I would encourage that this protection remain in place until there is an agreed upon solution on the talk page. Even though a majority of editors have supported one side, the other side hasn't conceded and given history I expect an immediate revert as soon as the protection expires.--Crossmr 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected deleted pages

Hi there! To my knowledge the old way of {{deletedpage}} for SALTing is no longer in use, and WP:PT is preferred. Or are there exceptions of which I'm unaware? >Radiant< 14:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not aware that deletedpages was deprecated. If that is the case, please correct the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Joy!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Scottish Knights Templar

Hi Jossi

You had refactored the text of a press release in the Talk:Scottish Knights Templar. The author has just put it back? Is this correct? --Sannhet 09:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... no harm I would say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

See my talk. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic

I think the clear consensus at the AfD was that this is a neologism. I hope that you do not intend to continue restoring it to articles from which it has been removed. Hornplease 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV. I hope that you make the effort to rewrite these articles so that the proper use of the term is applied, rather than doing a massive revert. Please discuss in the specific pages and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the DRV has to do with it. This is the appropriate forum, as I have noticed that you have inserted the term into several pages after the AfD, which seems inappropriate. If you wish to demonstrate article-specific consensus for using the term, the onus is now on you to bring it up on the appropriate article talkpage. Frankly, I don't see why you're so attached to the term. Hornplease 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted my reversions of a massive replacement of Dharmic religion to Indian religions by User:Andries in dozens of articles. What needs to happen is to re-write the sentences in these articles so that they wikilink to the appropriate articles in WP. For example, one could change "Dharmic religions" to "Religions in which Dharma plays a central role", or something along these lines. See for example a discussion at Major religious gorups. I am not attached to the term, BTW. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that any replacement term should be appropriate to the article, and a 'one-size-fits-all' approach should be avoided. I fully understand now that your reversions were made in that light. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Hornplease 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Join the discussion please (at Apostasy)

Talk about it, don't just revert without any explanation or justification. I explained the justification for my own edit, you explain what the conflict is. 76.200.152.188 04:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Malicious deletion of talk page comments

Immediately upon the apparent lifting of a block for User:Northmeister, he maliciously deleted relevant comments by me on the talk page of Talk:Anchor baby. [121] This is apparently why he wanted his block lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsey2006 (talk • contribs)

Jossi, in response I stated that I was going to remove the 'personal insult' or attack in our discussions. The parable in question refers to the discussion at Anchor Baby prior and refers to me as the 'benevolent' editor who proposes NPOV - despite claims otherwise. If you read our discussions and then the parable you will see this. The assumption made above is what I am going through with these two characters who have not been admonished for their insults and bad behavior. This whole situation needs mediation. I should not have to be subjected to personal attacks just for asking questions as to why someone deleted material from the article without first discussing why he was objecting to that material (the admin Will Beback did this). Editing is two-way - good faith has not been shown and I've been mistreated here all around. The personal attack against me had to be removed - it is malicious and mean spirited to say the least. --Northmeister 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister, refactoring of text from talk pages is done only in extreme situations, see WP:REFACTOR. You guys/gals need to start to play nicely together. It never ends up well otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if I you feel that I should restore the material; then I will do so. --Northmeister 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You could ask your fellow editors there if they really need that text in talk.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Thanks for the advice. I was following Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks at the time. I'll see what others wish should be done here. --Northmeister 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a rejected proposal, and that text was not of a nature that may have needed refactoring. Ask others if they would not mind if you remove that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Was not aware of that. I am sure there is policy against personal attacks and their removal. Anyway, if that is the case - then I will restore the 'parable' and have begun a new section pertaining to the removal - per your suggestion. --Northmeister 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Jossi. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann Hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix ^talk 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another admin has already warned this user about WP:CANVASS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

John Kanzius

Hi! I see that you removed my insertion of "This is not an energy source, though, as more energy will be used to produce the RF signal, than can be obtained from the burning gas.", flagging it as unattributed original research. I didn't really see the need to provide a reference here, as it would be to the well-known Laws of thermodynamics. Hardly OR, with thermodynamics being one of the physics strongholds since long. If you consider the Laws of thermodynamics to be unknown, by all means add that as the attribution. But removing the sentence that this isn't an energy source is not useful for unsophisticated readers. --Vinsci 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not the fact that what you added is true, but the fact that it violates WP:NOR, as that fact has not been referred to in regard of the previous sentence. I am sure that there are sources that say what you have written as related to Kanzius "invention", so it would be best to find that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such source available now, except Kanzius own admission that more energy is used than can be extracted, so I used that when I reintroduced the statement. --Vinsci 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the source and there is no mention of such statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Towards the end of the article, long quote: "The skeptics who will agree that it is possible to burn salt water - and there are plenty who won't even go that far - argue that at best the energy required to burn it would be greater than the energy produced by burning it. Kanzius admits that is the case now in this very early stage of development. But he add that he never claimed this would replace oil. In fact, he says only that his discovery is "thought provoking."" Are you ok with that? --Vinsci 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The conlusion you wrote using that source is a violation of WP:NOR. I will correct with proper attribution. In the future, please discuss in talk. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How is this a violation? The energy input goes to produce the gas and it ignites it. I think you're being unreasonable now, please remove the template. --Vinsci 00:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed my last edit. Please continue the debate in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jossi

Jossi, dear, I see you added {tl|pp-dispute}} to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you actually unprotected the article itself (it was semi-protected at the time). I believe you intended to fully protect it, as requested at WP:RFPP, so I've taken the liberty of locking it down for you. Please, feel free to review and undo me, k? Have a beautiful weekend, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that I protected it.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the page is in need of protection because of only one user; there is a concensus on the page but as a whole people wishing to move on with the page were told that User:Bsharvy's consent was needed...i.e. progress is being blocked by a single user who simply reverts when a group of other's reach a consensus he doesn't like. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, please pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Jossi. I've been reading up on 3RR and have come to actually agree with your decision involving myself. You've helped me to better understand the policy and to temper my editing style a bit in regards to using reverts and in this I wish to thank you. I do hope we have a chance to work together in the future under better circumstances. Regards, --Northmeister 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. Learning and improving a better Wikipedian makes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

please assess for WP:BLP

Dear Jossi,

Can you please take a look at this? Defamatory unsubstantiated claims are made about a living person. And, though he only selectively posted court cases and failed to post the newspaper this supposedly came from what I can read on his post the courts didn't take it seriously either. I know there are strict guidelines regarding BLP and didn't know if this should be deleted from the talk page for defamation. Thanks, Renee --Renee 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. in reading it more carefully it seems that it's not even about Sahaj Marg or the group, just that the accused happens to be a member? What do we do when people dump garbage on a talk page and try to link it to some group to push a POV? Thanks, Renee --Renee 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Do you think the Australian Yoga International source meets Wiki standards? I found several newspaper articles that say similar things I could substitute in as sources. Also, is a further reading section standard? Thanks again, Renee --Renee 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss that with editors involved in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. There are two "anti" Sahaj Marg persons who criticise any source we put up and then all of the other editors think these are good sources, so I just wanted to find out what the policy was on having a bona fide magazine article written by a member of the group (there's vetting and fact-checking AND the article was written by a member). It's my understanding that the reliable source is one that is vetted and fact-checked regardless of who wrote it (i.e., physicists write physics articles, catholics probably write catholic articles, cooks write food articles). Just wanted to see if I was on track. Thanks. --Renee 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are content disputes that cannot be solved by discussions, you can always proceed with dispute resolution. My view on this specific article is that it should remain as a stub, even shorter than what we have there now, due to the lack of reliable sources on the subject, or better, re-submit it to AfD for deletion on the same grounds: lack of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I found myself today wondering if it was really notable, especially since one editor just deleted one group that was associated with it. Thanks again. I respect your feedback. --Renee 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I was thinking about that, although I try to avoid it. Appreciate you making the decision for me! KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank User:Miranda who suggested this in IRC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh bother while you were blocking him I was already thanking her for reverting and saying I was thinking about it. I cannot keep up, too many good people on Wikipedia! :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"This is your last warning"

My last warning for what exactly, may I ask? SenseOnes 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding in your talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also impressed

I wonder what you might think of a co-nomination?--G-Dett 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hey, Jossi - need your advice over Elvis Presley and related articles like Graceland and per the user onefortyone. I'm not sure how to deal with this editor that refuses to engage in discussion or when discussion consensus disagrees - goes ahead and edits the article in his way at odds with the community view of the situation. This is especially true with the Elvis page because we are trying to prepare it for featured status. My main concern is how to deal with him. I don't want to get into a reverting situation which seems to be the only remedy. You may contact Thatcher31 if you need any background on the editor. --Northmeister 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that happens.... Best would be to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Took a look. There's some helpful advice there. Thanks again. --Northmeister 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Jossi, I have reported you for 3RR violation here. --Reuben 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

...and it's been found "no violation." Sorry to bother you, I am now more educated in what exactly counts as a revert. --Reuben 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Now reposted with an improved set of diffs. --Reuben 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh? Sorry if these seemed too many reverts. In any case, I do not intend to edit that article for a while. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I don't ask you to stop editing that article. A little reduction in reverts would be great. Yes, I now see that I should have posted to your talk page rather than going to AN/3RR. Sorry for the clumsy approach! I wasn't looking for or expecting any disciplinary action. --Reuben 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, posting a note here or in that article's talk, that would have been simpler, as my intention was not to editwar. I abhor that behavior and will stop editing for a while if that is the perception I create with my edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Jossi,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Your comments were wonderful..I was so happy to receive your support..! Let me know if there's ever anything I can do for you. Dreadstar † 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Deleted Article

Hi Jossi, I had created an Article called Pujyapada or Ācārya Pujyapada which seems to have been deleted for no reason. Can you please look into this. Or else guide me as to what needs to be done to reinstate it. Thanks--Anish Shah 08:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the log, these articles where speedy deleted due to copyright violation of http://www.gohgk.com/servlet/Detail?no=15) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Excuse me? Could you elaborate on your cryptic post to my talkpage? Perspicacite 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I will respond in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looking at your contributions I see what you are trying to say. So I'm not allowed to express my opinion in an edit summary. Never mind the dispute has nothing to do with BLP. Perspicacite 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not allow to call the subject of an article "son of a bich". And please, do not remove administrator's notices from your talk page for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you not understand what the point of WP:BLP is? The point is to exclude criticism of a living individual so Wikipedia doesnt unintentionally damage someone's reputation with false info. When I express my opinion in an edit summary, which by-the-way, I can do whenever I feel like it, it has no connection to BLP. The most you could complain about is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but one edit summary hardly falls under that category. Perspicacite 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple, really. You cannot use edit summaries to express your opinion. These are to describe your edit so that others are informed of your edits. Next time that you use an edit summary to "express" your viewpoint that the person in the article is a "son of a bich", you will temporarily lose your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? You'll block me for that? And at what point were you going to warn 128 for his repeated personal attacks and incivility? Or does that not fall under that category of blockable offenses? Just curious. Perspicacite 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is 128? If he is breaching WP:NPA, you can place a notice at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

...and with that this conversation ends. Do me a favor and look back at WP:BLP and WP:NOT so you do not confuse the two in the future. In future conflicts you come across look at the page's history before you intervene. Perspicacite 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My warning to you stand. Don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You know how I know you didnt actually look at the page history? If you had you would have seen 128's expletive towards me. Wow... just... wow. Perspicacite 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to this, that is also not a proper use of edit summaries. He deserves a warning as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I love how you condescendingly told me to warn 128 and then welcomed him on his talkpage. Do me a favor, dont post on my talkpage again. Perspicacite 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I warned him here]. Please do not refactor talk page discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User 210.136.72.195

Jossi--do you believe that this user was committing vandalism, or simply didn't understand whatever they were trying to accomplish? It appears to me that repeated editing to the same article in such a short period of time was probably the result of not understanding wikipedia guidelines. Does this constitute a ban? I only ask because I am still trying to learn the 'moderating' rules so to speak. Thanks --Coffee and TV 05:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The user kept deleting content after being warned. See his contrib. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not "banned", just blocked for a short period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning.

You warned me for vandalism but I was actually removing the vandalism, I quoted the the vandalism in the edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.113.99 (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected ... an honest mistake. My apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Honored

Jossi, I'm honored that you've offered to nominate me for adminship. I'm interested in serving as an admin but would like to avoid a premature or unsuccessful RfA. Kinowing my own life experiences and responsibilities, I am sure that I can be trusted as a responsible sysop at Wikipedia. However, I realize Wikipedians only know me through HG's edits/contributions. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

Besides my absorbing the admin reading list and RfA info, what do you think I should do to prepare for the RfA?

Do you have a sense of whether/how I should address some of my shortcomings prior to an RfA? Or during the RfA discussion? For instance, my current edit count is around 1,650, which is lower than the benchmark used by some RfA nominators (if not voters). In addition, I lack certain areas of know-how or experience, such as may be needed for editing the interface or working with bots.

When were you thinking would be a good time to start the RfA?

Thanks for your confidence in me. Take care. HG | Talk 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to rush for an RfA, and indeed is better to be well prepared ... A first good step would be to ask for a Wikipedia:Editor review, and see what recommendations you get from other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also get involved in some of the janitorial stuff, such as fighting vandalism, working on one of the many backlogs, etc. If you are interested in spending some of your wiki-time in removing vandalism from Wikipedia, email me and I will give you instructions on how to set yourself up with some tools for that task. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the editor review is a great idea. It's interesting, the review page itself says it's not for people who want to be admins, but then a fair amount of the cases do revolve around RfA issues. Well, no matter how it plays out, I'd be glad to get feedback on any aspect of my efforts here. Perhaps I'll try my hand at some maintenance tasks, too, at some point. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

Dear Jossi, This is outright harassment, following on the heels of filing a vandalism report against me (that was turned down flat), besides little insults like this though he was supposedly a brand new user. Who has time to deal with such editors?

I've been treating him with good faith and he continues to test the patience of all on the Sahaj Marg talk page.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you, Renee --Renee 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My view, is that given enough rope certain people do not need help in getting the proverbial knot around their own necks. Save these diffs, and if he persists, you can file a notice for disruption at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Renee 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock confirmed. Thanks again for moving us forward on the Sahaj Marg page. You had mentioned in one talk post that newspaper articles could sometimes be primary sources? When is that the case? --Renee 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep ... given enough rope .... some people inflict pain upon themselves unaided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I modeled the following off of what you did (cut and paste). Hope they're right! (feel free to fix if messed up) Comments welcome, Renee Renee 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

However, I noticed that you undid my edit at Israel. Could you please explain to me why? Tegwarrior 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I will explain in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. You seem to have missed the two points of my change. If they now make sense to you, I'd appreciate it if you'd restore my change now rather than leaving it for me to do after a couple of days. Tegwarrior 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Washington post article

Hi Jossi - Here's the article on Wikipedia editing of political pages from Monday's Washington Post that included some quotes from me - front page, by the way. Tvoz |talk 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. You make us proud...! :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it was pretty cool. Tvoz |talk 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:206.40.168.90

I caught this user's vandalism at Paul Reubens about half an hour after your "only warning" tag. Block? Cheers! Murderbike 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Principle, rules, the madness!

I wrote a first draft for a new essay, Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and I would really appreciate your input and opinions. I hope this finds you well. Cheers! Vassyana 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance and feedback. I particularly like the picture and caption. :) Vassyana 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking good...! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols and World Revolution

The two Antisemitism templates are different! Ludvikus 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but for a short stub, it is an overkill... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

James R. Lewis

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article James R. Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Rat 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This had been significantly defaced, as a trivial inspection of the history showed. I've de-prodded and restored the pre-vandalism version. SamBC(talk) 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR - proposal for second section

While we continue to slug it out over primary and secondary sources, would you support this proposal? I raised it a little over a week ago and there was some support and little opposition. Having proposed it I don't think it is appropriate for me to make the change, but if you think it would be an improvement could you orchestrate moving it into the policy (or try to)? I think everyone would like to see some forward motion, and it is not going to happen with the sources issue right now ... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Ozzie9 has been vandalizing the Hillary article. Captain Phoebus 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please post a notice at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I over-rode your block of User:Ozzie9 and turned it into an indefinite block. The contribution history is 100% vandalism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfcs and other travesties

How did you miss that Rfc? Ferrylodge is still complaining about Bishonen on his talk page, go look.

Perhaps you missed the entire mess. I could start with the original incident, but I think these will be sufficient (assuming you actually need to see any more): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge, followed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2, followed by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259#Disruptive editing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment by Ferrylodge. These are only the main events in a long and sorry saga. I could have written a huge Rfc followed by ArbCom, but I thought it would save time and effort, on everyone's part, to simply list the highlights at CSN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Missed it completely... Well, there still are nooks and crannies in Wikipedia that escape my attention.... ;) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What a bloody waste of time... This community ban should have been done long ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly my position. Enough is enough, and in this case, more than enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate you taking a look at this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Youtube thread

The reason I linked to it was the comments at the bottom >_> Will ^(talk) 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Uri Geller

I'm wondering if you'd like to take a look at Uri Geller, and see if you think it faces the same issue of an overdone criticism section that Sylvia Browne had. An editor there thinks so, and without reading the whole thing, it looks like it to me as well. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a bit, removed a bunch of self-published sources as per WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP and made some comments in talk. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast

Thanks for fixing my mistake in cutting off your signature there! Sorry about that. Wikidemo 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome "jossi"! Deconstructhis 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure... Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

Hi Jossi. I really appreciate your helping me clarify what I did and didn't mean to say on Talk:Dominionism. The infobox is now (only slighly) less problematic than it was, but it could be changed back in a moment sometime down the road, unless we make a clear statement that its form until yesterday was biased. If you agree (and even if you don't), I would greatly appreciate your opinion of the bold-italic statement I've posted near the end of this thread. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

That's basically what I did months ago, hopefully it will stick this time. --JWSchmidt 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have sprotected and placed the page on my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm just getting started and I'm doing a lot of reading before I make too many edits. Please let me know if you see something I can do to improve my editing. --Jdcaust 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read some of the links I placed in your page, and have fun... Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions

Hi, Jossi…….IAF is wreaking a havoc on the pages of Indian religions. I suggest that you have a look at his edits and discussion. He has violated the 3RR rule many times. Its high time some administrator intervened here. --Anish Shah 09:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User Manish Modi is reverting the Indian religions page without as much as a peep into the talk page. I think he is either a troll, or just someone not interested. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked IAF for one week. This is a recurring pattern of behaviour. He was blocked just over a month ago for 96 hours due to similar actions. Also, IAF's claim that MM never posted to the talk page is false, which continues an apparent pattern of distortion/disruption. Vassyana 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF is once again back to his old tricks by using IP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/60.243.3.105

He has started edit warring once again - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_religions&curid=14605&diff=160193788&oldid=159952940

I suggest that this page be semi protected. Thanks--Anish Shah 08:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and policies

Jossi... I don't want to post this to the NOR talk page, as it would simply be a distraction from the discussion... But I do want to point something out to you...

Your edit summary: "This is official policy until such time in which consensus about changing policy is found", which you added to your reverting the addition of a disputed tag on the NOR page, reminds me a lot of a discussion you and I took part in back in October '06 on the WP:RS talk page. Then, the issue was whether to demote WP:RS to Essay or keep it as a Guideline... and people were in a minor revert war over the tag. For example see: this diff, where you return the tag to "essay".

The thing that I just want to point out is this: At that time, you were the one arguing that to fend off a challenge to the status of a guideline/policy, it was the job of the editors that liked the page to show that there weas a consensus to keep. you were defending your edits by saying that it no longer had consensus, and were trying to rebut the claim you now make... that to change the status of something the challengers needed to demonstrate consensus to change. See this old discussion (and those around it) and you will see what I am talking about.

I happen to agree with your current stance (did then, still do)... It does take more than a few editors to "dispute" or challenge the status of a guideline/policy page/section... but I do have to wonder whether your flip/flop in attitude on this question depends on whether you happen to like the policy/guideline in question or not? Just think about it. Blueboar 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Paul Dale Smith

I'm not trying to be territorial, but I'd put up a review notice on the nominations page and was in the midst of writing a review. The headline of your article talk section was to say the nom was put on hold, but the page's talk tag is unchanged. I see you placed the hold tag on the nomination page's entry though. Just let me know what you were intending. VanTucky ^Talk 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, take over the review. No problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks jossi. I'd be happy to hear any additional comments you have concerning the article and the review. VanTucky ^Talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I am starting to lose patience with WAS 4.250, which is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting him? Am I being unfair? I would appreciate it if you would comment on this exchange. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Morgan needs pi banning again

Hey there,

I feel silly asking again, but I think we need to ban IPs from this article. People having stopped having an argument and are now just editing nonsense.

Thank you for your time. -Kirkoconnell 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete

Hi Jossi,

Would this be eligible for speedy deletion? (It seems that since the intent was to delete the Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages that this page should be deleted too - no?) If yes, which category would it be? (no content?)

Thanks, Renee Renee 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks! Renee 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Templated

I have responded to the template you placed on my talk page. If you have anything to add please do so there. Thanks. --Brianmc 18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression ...

... that (dass) this (diese) was (was) the (die) English (Englische) wikipedia (wikipedia) and (und) not (nicht) the (die) German (Deutsche) wikipedia (wikipedia).

Jossi, I might have been mistaken on the 'voting' policy, but I'm pretty sure that this still is the English wikipedia. Adding German names to English words and altering links a la "[[Dog|''Hund'']]" goes beyond me. When people want to know German words for ship classes that also exist in English, they use Wiktionary.Rex 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding other languages to specific names and terms. We do this in may articles, using sanskrit, hebrew and other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Really. All those terms have perfectly acceptable English counterparts. Indeed many are calques from English. If it concerned a unique word (which I have yet to encounter in German) I would agree, but adding German names behind every English word or using German terms with English redirects is beyond me. You see, my philosophy is that the people who visit the English wikipedia ... want to read in English, not German. Might just be me of course.Rex 07:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrasal attribution

Hey Jossi. I was wondering if you might comment on this this idea at V. It might also have some bearing on the discussions at WT:NOR. Hope you're well. Marskell 12:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Developed Country

Jossi, I erased what seems to be a mistake in the article. If you had read my post in the discussion forum you would understand why. I believe it is correct to improve and erase mistakes in Wikipedia. Listing Turkey and South Africa as developed countries is clearly a mistake thus the CIA list is not credible. I think you would agree that leaving such a list in the article is very confusing and not in par with the meaning of Wikipedia to provide useful and correct data. If there is a mis-spelling from my side, please feel free to correct it. Dont revert my whole edit!...Unless you have proofs that this list is correct. If so please use the discussion page the specific article before any reverts..Thanx213.5.211.252 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we describe information published in reliable sources as per our policy of verifiability. If a source, such as the CIA made a mistake, we simply say that "the CIA says Turkey and South Africa as developed countries", attributing that viewpoint to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New User - Living Bio question

Hey Jossi, I'm not a regular contributor so I don't know the "editing/negotiating with others" policies, but a recent attempt to find information caused me to try to edit a page---with no luck. I saw your name on editorial assistance, and figured I'd ask. What do you do with someone who immediately changes a page back the minute you make changes? The current page on "Judd Winick" was such a congested irrelevant mess that I tried to pare it down, but today it's been put back, and is now actually even more fan-like and longer. I'll give up if it's going to be impossible, but every now and then I like to help around here, and this page is just silly at it's current length. :( Kyraven 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Best is to engage the editor that is reverting your edits and ask him/her to discuss thes edits with you. If the editor does not respond and continues reverting, you may want to alter an admin at WP:ANI. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for trying to help. I give up. Everything I tried to convey he took as a personal attack, and focused on everything unimportant, without even seeing the major fixes that need to be made. His tone of "affronted honest dismay" made it impossible to convince him of anything. I'm sad to say I'm finished trying---I don't need this level of stress. I had really hoped that editing this article would be my first step into becoming a regular contributor, but this experience has been so frustrating that I don't think that will happen now. Sigh. Kyraven 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rex's Block

Should Rex not be blocked for the remainder of the time he was alotted? He was offered a chance to leave comments about his community ban Community sanction noticeboard and he has done that. Anyways, I'll leave it up to you. Kingjeff 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He still has exactly 541 hours and 50 minutes of the block to be completed. He is served exactly 34 hours and 10 minutes. Kingjeff 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive but preventative. Any further disruption by this user will result in a one month block escalating to three months if recurring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realized this but Rex was only unblocked so he could leave messages on his case that you closed on the community sanction board. That's my interpretation of this. Kingjeff 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but what I say above is a good call, I think: The community sanction is sufficient at this point, as any related disruption will be taken very seriously and will be swiftly followed by an immediate 1 month block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just didn't know if you knew the circunstances around him being unblocked. Kingjeff 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

!!!

You're a Zukofsky fan? And an HG fan – you and me might be friends yet.--G-Dett 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Louis Zukofsky? No really... I just edited an article about René Taupin recently... But that does not mean we cannot be friends... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about René Taupin, and I know a fair amount about Zukofsky and Pound. I'll have to look into him. OK, so we both like HG, that's a good enough basis (such a gentleman, what's not to like?)...--G-Dett 02:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HG? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:HG, lol.--G-Dett 02:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Woman and Barrel detail .jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Woman and Barrel detail .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please check the history of the Theta Nu Epsilon article through June for the wild and unsubstantiated claims by whoever the advocate for a Purdue story is, (including an extensive made-up history for a never-existing organization called the Holy Order of Skull & Crescent). His posts resulted in large-scale changes to a handful of articles, all of which had to be removed when the hoax was exposed. The article on the Holy Order of Skull & Crescent was deleted. There were several accounts involved in June, including many posts from the IP address 65.54.154.XXX. Now there are the accounts 'Bfigura' and 'Editing', posting the same highly unique story and supported by additional sock puppet posts from 65.54.154.XXX

The article is 100% unsourced. I have tagged it accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's untrue. The article does have references and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged accordingly. See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand the verifibility guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Please see WP:V, WP:CITE, as different from WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)" ---Right. I've read the pages. I don't think you understand these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk)

Really? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists

Wikipedia:Lists is a style guideline. Wikipedia:Lists has long had a section entitled "Criteria for inclusion in lists". I often cited to that very section at AfD for the reason to delete a list, specifically "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources." They rarely do and if they do they don't actually adhere to that membership criteria. Wikipedia:Lists recently has been rid of that membership criteria statement as well as revamp in other ways. Per Wikipedia page stats, you have the most edits to Wikipedia:Lists (congradulations!), so I assume you have good insight into the matter. Would you please look into this. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have restored the long-standing formulation of the guideline. If there is a need to tighten it, it should be discussed at length before making such changes which change the spirit of the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an effort to continue this May 2007 debate. As long as Wikipedia:Lists has the membership criteria in it, I'm happy. -- Jreferee t/c 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, please weigh in... : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially, see User talk:Quiddity#Stealth additions, and please correct me if I've made any mistakes or inappropriate remarks (no need to comment there otherwise, I don't want any unnecessary arguments on my talkpage ;). Thanks. --Quiddity 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a good assessment of the situation. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Needing your help on Sex Abuse Cases in American Public Schools (Iowa)

I would like to eliminate the word (Iowa) in the title of this page, can you help?NancyHeise 20:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is up for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Marquis Who's Who

Hi, with all due respect, I'm concerned that your unexplained elimination of the "Criticism" section and placing Tucker Carlson's controversial opinion in the "Publications" listing gives it WP:UNDUE weight. There has been a little discussion on the Article's Talk page between two sides on the subject: one, that it's virtually a vanity press vs. two, a serious reference work. JGHowes ^talk - 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I will respond there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 34 1,590 1,624 FL 192 192 A 1 103 104 GA 41 8,078 8,119 B 91 37,270 37,361 C 37 159,571 159,608 Start 3 735,471 735,474 Stub 1 1,031,923 1 1,031,925 List 7,480 7,480 Category 2 207,060 207,062 Disambig 8,072 8,072 File 29,528 29,528 Project 1 197 198 Redirect 3 41,939 41,942 Template 12,676 12,676 NA 238 238 Assessed 214 2,281,388 1 2,281,603 Unassessed 1 32,640 32,641 Total 215 2,314,028 1 2,314,244 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,635,811 Ω = 5.39
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority

Thank you for the work you are doing on this article. I came across it last night after someone erroneously added John F. Kennedy to the category Category:Charismatic religious leaders, and I have to say I was appalled at the current condition of the list and its references. Some reference links had been removed as 'clearly unreliable' yet the associated listings remained; some listings are shockingly inadequately referenced—and these are just the ones with online references that I could readily check. As is, the list reeks of WP:OR, since it appears some editors have made the leap from "somebody used the adjective 'charismatic' in reference to this guy" to "this guy meets the Weber classification". I've read the previous AfD and your comments there, and I see that you have cleaned up some of the problems I noticed this morning. I just wanted to thank you for having your head screwed on straight :) Maralia 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs more work and pruning. Many of the sources not not check. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Universal Life Church Monastery

I appreciate what you might be trying to do, but the article should probably just be deleted as a copyvio, if not as non-notable. GreenJoe 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a monastery, is it not? I do not see a reason why not to have a small stub on it. Have you checked if there re any secondary sources out there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Too late .... it has already been deleted... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a monastery, rather a "drive by" ordination website, in which one can get ordained as a minister by a click of a mouse... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Zaojing

Hi there, thanks for taking an interest in this developing conflict I seem to be having with User:Mattisse. I have replied on his accusations on ANI. I admit that I did not follow the proper merger discussion procedures. However, I did discuss the change at aboth User talk:Mattisse and at Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture). In both cases, he failed to respond to my final posts, which led me to assume that I had consensus. I had presumed that this being a simple matter of merging two short articles, that I could dispense with those procedures. In any case, I will now follow the proper procedures of Template:mergeto and all that. In the mean time, could you have a word with User:Mattisse concerning his claims to "own" articles? His claims about Zaojing are merely annoying, but his claims about Dougong (see my talk page) are plainly wrong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be best to put all that behind, and move on... happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

Hi Jossi. Welcome to the alternate reality of editing the Alice Bailey article. I am always happy to see someone new involved in editing the article, and particularly someone with as much editing experience as you seem to have. I have a lot of hope that your ideas for the article will prove helpful.

However, out of fairness, I should tell you at this early point, that you are likely to regret taking on editing this article. Yesterday, you may have noticed that Parsifal - one of the best and most level headed editors I have seen - seemed almost driven to the point of despair over the situation. So you are welcome, but might want to consider turning back before you pass a point of no-return. (I still feel a sense of guilt over not warning Parsifal.) Kwork 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an issue. You may think that it is a difficult article, but that is not the case. Go an edit an article on Linguistics if you want a really hard one.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you may see it differently soon, and I thought it only fair to say. Kwork 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pattern interrupt

Hi Jossi

I saw that you removed the ref to the Norwegian Dutch WP, and I understand your reason. Just wondering -Is there any way to link to a non-English WP article properly? or does it need to be translated first? I'd never encountered that kind of situation before. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Just use [[nl:Emotional Freedom Techniques]] at the bottom of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --Parsifal _Hello 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

editing

Jossi, as per your second "warning", I have just this to ask if I am bounced:

• that the block not just be one article, but all articles, and
• that the block not be temporary, but permanent.

Thanks. Kwork 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Alice Bailey

Hi jossi, thanks very much for your input on Alice Bailey. I especially appreciate the way that, after inserting a "nag tag", you didn't hesitate to follow up shortly by actually working to improve the article. That seems to be the very best way to use those, to me.

On the other hand, I am a bit dissatisfied with your behavior on the Talk page. Perhaps because of your adminship, I refrained from saying so there, and I don't wish this to be seen as a "warning", just a personal request. However, I am bold enough to treat you like any other editor if I feel you violate policy, and I trust that you would expect nothing else.

In any case, it's my opinion that, given the "intellectual debate" and furious haggling over some really obscure points on that talk page, going on full-steam for over six months now, using phrases like "obvious OR" and other bluntness is very likely to cause contention, and to ruffle feathers unnecessarily. cat, in particular, has shown she responds well to reasoned discussion at times, but can also be quite ... well, whatever. My request is simply that you make an effort to tone down your comments like this, because they will not help the article to progress. In other words, and with respect, please cool it a bit, ok? Thanks for your consideration, and again, thanks for your edits. Eaglizard 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I will take that into consideration. OTOH, note that my comments have been direct and to the point. If it is ruffling some feathers, it may be because there are strong POVs at play. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had not known that is is a wiki-crime to have a point of view. Kwork 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We all have POVs, Kwork. The trick is to put Wikipedia's aims ahead of our personal views, and staying cool when discussing subjects about which we have strong POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal views? What personal views? I get all my views directly from God. (Well...perhaps, occasionally, I may take my views from wiki-administrators who think they are God.) Kwork 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think your editing has improved the article. Kwork 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a comment right there that I'm having to bite my fingers to keep from responding to. Anyways, jossi, yes, I've absolutely noticed and admired the directness and clarity of your comments. But you're right, there's strong POV present. I'm not condoning it, either. I'm just suggesting that ... well, I've suggested what I'm suggesting, and I'm sure you'll take it into account. Thanks again. Eaglizard 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

• Lucis Trust
• Alice Bailey lectures
• Complete Works of Alice Bailey that can be downloaded
• Dissertation from the U of W. Sydney, The texts of Alice A. Bailey: An inquiry into the role of esotericism in transforming consciousness.

Category:1880 births Category:1949 deaths Category:English astrologers Category:English occult writers Category:Founders of religions Category:New Age authors Category:People from Manchester Category:Theosophists

de:Alice Bailey et:Alice Bailey es:Alice Bailey fr:Alice Bailey it:Alice Bailey nl:Alice Bailey pl:Alice Bailey pt:Alice Bailey ru:?????, ????? fi:Alice Bailey

|- |}

This version is way too heavy on quotes from primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

entries that urgently need tags

My friend who is looking at Mensa connexions here says he knows only two other members of Mensa, Carol Vorderman & Clive Sinclair. Their articles are like fan pages, more than this one (Brian J. Ford page) ever was, and nearly all statements made have no sources. These need the famous tags put on them. This article (Brian J. Ford one)no longer needs tags. Will check to see standards are all the same for these pages, looks like just the Ford page is being bombarded and other bio pages are being built by people who know their subjects better!! Biggish Bertha 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If these other articles are "fan pages", please fix them. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are badly written, lack sources, etc. As we say in Wikipedia WP:SOFIXIT. As for the Ford article, please do not add superlatives and unsupported statements to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Littlefield links per BLPN

Hi Jossi, you closed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ron Littlefield (closed) a few weeks ago, and the editor has since readded the link. The article he mentions does nothing to establish the author/blog's credibility or notability, and there is no reporting or editorial oversite whatsoever -- one of the last entries consists of gossip received via emails from equally anonymous sources. Since I am no longer willing to assume good faith about this editor, I need to stay out of this issue, but I believe the link should not be on this site...will you take a look at the article? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have commented there and placed a warning in the user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jossi, if you look at the discussion page, I had left my argument/thoughts/response for why I thought the worstmayorever.com site was valid (though not "normal") to be in the External Links section almost a month ago, and no-one responded, so when I was cleaning up the article later, I added it back in. I don't see how that's disruptive (especially if you look at my other edits on that article and see how they were very much working towards improving the quality of that entry). Basically, this is a request to "assume good faith". Qmax 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

are you going to respond? I've been very polite and patient, and haven't touched the link in question since you left your comment, I think it's only polite and appropriate for you to take the time to respond to a fellow wiki editor that you reprimanded Qmax 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I did not respond is because I feel I have already made my argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where? I agree links of that kind should normally be avoided, but I'm arguing that this is an abnormal situation, and I gave very specific reasons why. What do you think of those reasons? Qmax 18:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions are appreciated .

Less than 2 months ago the Bailey article was ruled by the Alice Bailey fan club. They fought Cat and Kwork tooth and nail in an attempt to keep all references to Ms Bailey's antisemetism and or racism off the article. Thanks to the help of an admin named AnonEmouse and a member of the arbitration committee named Jpgordon (who is also and admin) the tables were eventually turned. To make a long story short the impression that you are getting is a very lopsided one. My guess is that you have no idea of the fact that they did things like refer to us as the Jewish Defense League , and accusing us of conspiring to ruin Ms Bailey's reputation. We just shrugged such comments off for the most part and tried to explain our position. Jpgordon did no editing whatsoever and AnonEmouse did almost none if any,

There is also a dandy case of Attempted Meat Puppetry that may eventually need to be dealt with. I say attempted but the fact of the matter is that the attempt was trailed by the appearence of a few single purpose editors. This information was kept from Jp Gordon and AnonEmouse until after the edit warring stopped.

As for the here and now I truly hope you stay. I am surprised that you took offense to what Catherine and Kwork had to say today. Maybe I missed something. You suggested that when we hit snags we can use the dispute process to help settle such disputes. I think everyone agrees with you about that. You know that process better than any of us do. Anyway consider this a belated welcome to the article from me and a sincere thank you for what you have contributed thus far. I do hope you decide to stay even if it is a little like pulling teeth at times.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I have read the archives and I am aware of the history of this article and POVs at play.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are probably already aware of the insincere arrogance of this group. Posted just before his "welcome" to you:

I am now fully aware of why you are concerned about Jossi. As you know Parsifal defended you. I am going to assume that Jossi has concentration problems. Please be careful Cat. You may be dealing with a loose cannon. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo article - Vandalism continues

As soon as the restriction period over, it has been 4 edits done by 24.222.2.179 and 84.44.145.179 to mess-up the whole article and change of his birth year again. What shall I do? Is it possible to ask for permanent restriction to protect the article? Hopefully you could help. The article was put under protection before for the very same reason. Those people know exactly the duration for the protection, and now that it has over, they start doing it again - Jay 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Warning to Rex Germanus

I've made good on your implicit warning [131] with this block [132] Please feel free to refactor the block if I've misunderstood the situation. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

not easy

Hi Jossi. When you started editing I said this: "out of fairness, I should tell you at this early point, that you are likely to regret taking on editing this article". The editing situation for this article is difficult, and I hope that what I said is not already coming true. (I know that I am one reason that it is difficult, but there is a reason I do things the way I do.) In any case, the view I always try to maintain is that people always do what they think is right, and it is not possible for other people to see things the same way I do. Under other circumstances those same opponents might well become friends.

Anyhow, Jossi, try to be patient. The article has gotten better, and you have been a help. But it is natural for people to argue. To put it in Alice Bailey terminology, humanity itself, as a whole, is ruled by the 4th Ray which is called "harmony through conflict". Kwork 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a thick skin, but I will not tolerate uncivil comments regardless who is making them, and regardless of the context in which these are made. A good and vigorous debate is appreciated, but the arguments have to be made about the edits, and not about the editors. Now, if we can move on from this, that would be indeed appreciated.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No "uncivil comments". That is a beautiful dream I have had. For the past seven months my personality has been the favorite subject of most editors who oppose me[133]. Perhaps you would like to add some items to this list.Kwork 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Hi jossi,

User:ScienceApologist is attempting to edit war his changes into FRINGE, and refuses to discuss them on the talk page, accusing me of gaming the system. I don't know what should be done in the situation, but I ask you to take action and do whatever admins do here. I tried earlier to revert to the stable version, and he just reverted back and made accusations. Thanks (; ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise

From now on I will make any comments that may be taken out of context via Wiki Email. With that said. I said what I said in response to the way you accused Cat of making obvious original research. She took it as an insult. I have concentration problems. I misread texts on a regular basis. What I said was not intended to be hurtful. I apologise. Albion moonlight 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hi Jossi:

You have placed this on another user's talk page:

Regarding this: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

It seems to me that you are not distinguishing between a discussion on user talk pages and personal attacks on an article talk page. I could collect at least a dozen statements about me on user talk pages that are far worse than this. I have occasionally argued over those statements, but never issued a warning which I think would amount to trying to inhibit free speech in the context of user pages. I have no idea what Wikipedia rules are about this, but the result of warnings over such discussion would be to have editors turn to email for discussing issues that would be better discussed in the open. Kwork 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

About "free speech", please read WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jossi, on this we do not agree. Certainly civility is a wonderful thing. But, if you think it can be imposed through Wikipedia rules, you are wrong. All such rules can produce is an 1984 style thought police enforcment of rules against thoughtcrime. So the beauty in civility becomes degraded into the ugliness of secret surveillance, warnings, and enforcement through penalties or the threat of penalties. I want no part of that. Kwork 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We should focus on the article, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Oh yes the loose cannon reference.

I was warning Cat because your status as an admin caused me to be concerned. I did not realize that you came to the article as an editor only. I apologize for that too. I can walk on eggs with the best of them.

I think you are over reacting too but I also now know that in terms of wiki civility policy you have that right. I apologise. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 00:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let us put all that behind without bad feelings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes please lets do that, I have no bad feeling towards you. I think you are a valuable asset to that article : Albion moonlight 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC): Albion moonlight 02:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page change

You're aware of User:Kwork changing the signature of one of my talk page comments. I've never seen this done before, and I really don't know how to react to it. It's not even clear to me why he'd make that particular change. I'm a bit baffled, but I was willing to ignore it when it happened. It isn't really shocking to me, just bizarre. Wearing your admin hat, do you feel some action should be taken? I assume if you did, you'd have asked another admin to have a look? Eaglizard 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you linked to Loose canon, which is a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster. I bet you have in fact never been called that. ;^) Did you actually mean Loose cannon, or were you just being clever? Eaglizard 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A very similar thing happened to me on this particular page, pursuant to what I had said on Cats page but it also contained message that alerted Jossi to what I said on cats talk page. It contained my signature but I never copied any of it to this page . It was very Bizarre indeed. I thought of it as a glitch of some sort. I cannot figure out who did it or why. : Albion moonlight 09:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

please respond on my talk page

Dear Jossi, after reading your Wiki bio I can see that you're a compassionate man. I am making an appeal not only to your compassion but also appealing to your strong adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, rules and standards. This may not be a good time because I feel ill and shocked at the mean spiritedness that I just read on the Alice Bailey discussion. I would not be writing to you now, if not for the spark of decency from someone--asking them to stop. And another for timidly giving a good explanation for what may have occurred. I am guessing "timidly" because anyone that dares to defend a spokesman for Alice Bailey has been repeatedly accused of being an Anti-Semitic or a racist. The discussion section verifies this.

The Alice Bailey article is currently being shaped by those with a "personal view". The editors are biased, have little or no knowledge of the subject. And are not following Wikipedia rules of finding the the best verifiable sources, but are selecting sources that support what they want to say. And will insult and delete the work of anyone who tries to give a more balanced and scholarly picture. My personal talk page is still active if you want to reply there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklecplenty (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Sparklecplenty 16:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh

Just saw your long sequence of edits on Yahweh. Maybe you should compare start and end once more yourself. Many things are improvements, but some destroy the grammar of a sentence - e.g. in Noun Phrase started when ..., which you changed into Noun Phrase. It started ... - or cause unbalanced parentheses. In some cases a reference with less reputable source lost the source URL, turning it into something unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks of the feedback. I will take a look and see if I made any deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Brettingham

Is there a point to wikifying all the years like that [134] - also I was making some changes with the in use tag on! Giano 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I mess anything? Sorry. As for wkfying years, why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to undo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not worth undoing, but the corrent thought is that there is no need to link every year unless it is very important to the article [135] Giano 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Let's just link then to the decade only such as 1740s, where useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Berlin article

Please change the version to the established one [136] before the page gets protection. The version you protected is the disputed one. Lear 21 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another request: can you convert the huge tag into something discreet? The current tag distracts the readability of the articles introduction. Lear 21 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The version that is disputed is actually Lear21's version which insists that Berlin is the 2nd largest city in the EU. I understand Lear21 is from Berlin, and we all like to present our cities as the best this or the biggest that, but it is quite POV to use one narrow definition of city (administrative limits of the central municipality) to claim that Berlin is the 2nd largest city in Europe, when in fact its urban area is only the 9th most populated in Europe, way behind cities like Paris, London or Madrid. Lear21 has preserved his disputed wording of the introduction (what he refers to as the "established version") by systematically reverting editors who tried to UNPOV that "2nd largest city" claim, and this for many months now (see [137]). So it's a bit of bad faith for him to claim that his version of the article is the undisputed one. Keizuko 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I will respond in article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are discreet options protecting an article. Using an oversized template at the top of the article is out of proportion considering a minor incident (edit dispute) like this. Please reconsider changing the tag. Lear 21 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can request unprotection, if ready to resume editing without edit-wars, at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, here IS the request for unprotection. YOU are the one, responsible for the actions. Here is the place for asking. So please, again, reverse your measure, remove at least the tag or the protection at all. There is no justification to clutter an 80kb article with a tag in an edit dispute over half a phrase for a whole week. Thanks in advance Lear 21 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the process. I have protected the article because there was edit warring, false WP:ANI/3RR reports, etc. You can contest the protection by asking another admin to review it. Do so at WP:FRPP. Any further comments here will be ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your actions have proofed a lack of proportion. You also proofed unable to apply the administrative functions in a flexible manner. This procedure is hardly convincing to be responsible. Lear 21 12:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please change the tag to a discreet version as long as the article has to be protected. You are responsible for that. Lear 21 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I will remove the protection and keep an eye on the article. Note that any further recurring edit warring by you or others in that article, will result in the temporarily loss of your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

What did I do to Johnny Cash?

Please respond on my talk page, I'll never find my way back here...

Thelegendarystm 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

German Neo Nazis

Hi Jossi

I would like to urge you very importantly to look at all the Pages containing references to the Holy Roman Empire in the Wikipedia german, swiss, Luxembourg etc. sites: Here NeoNazis are at work, who try by stealth to place their ideology in wikipedia. See Celle "Bunny Hunt" Roman Holy Empire, Goslar etc. Get the editor of this article and hold him responsible. Other Nations are offended by this and the facts of the Holy Roman Empire do not mirror the reality: as well as that of the Reichszirkel. Here history is being perverted and the least thing i would like to see is that Wikipedia is used as A PLATFORM FOR NAZI idiology. If this continues, i shall refer this to the press that you habour Nazi writiers amongst your contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merleauponty (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Teachings of Prem Rawat

Hi Jossi,

Yes I agree, it is just a stub, but I am having a little trouble proceeding. Any helpful advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Rumiton 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you can do much better without me... but I will try and offer some ideas.You also need to add {{Teachings of Prem Rawat}} at the beginning of the section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy

Good morning Jossi.

How are you ? I have returned to Wikipedia for the first time in a couple of months today- my traditional long weekend contribution was due.

I haven't had a look for a couple of months due to falling pregnant and hence being rather busy and tired. However the content of Western Calligraphy has been entirely hacked apart. My bibliography remains at the end of the article but the refences to which they refer have been entirely removed along with the text.

I see that this process was started in July and again further pursued this month by two different writers of no evident merit on trhis subject. Are you able to take the page back to what it was in say May and we can work from there?

I am surprised that I have not been told of this as we could have saved the page from the ruinous consequences of these editors.

Look forward to hearing from you. Certainly the edits that have been performed no longer allow te page to be regarded as based on reliable published authority. I would appreciate it if you could email me directly please. Calligraphy@xtra.co.nz

Kind regards, Alison Furminger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furminger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alison. Nice to see you back. I think that what editors are doing there is to add inline citations rather than Harvard style citations. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Celts

I have reverted your edits to the modern usage section, as the article states the nations are based on the "criterion employed by the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress. In this sense, there are six modern nations that can be defined as Celtic: Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales". To replace Ireland with the republic, in my opinion is unjustified, as well as being secterian. If you do want the republic listed as a seperate entity to Ireland, it would not be unreasonable to add Northern Ireland to the list as well. Some would class using the poliitical entities as WP:OR (It has been quite heavily warred over in Template:Celtic_nations), I would be quite ambivalent. Fasach Nua 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irish flag was changed from the four provinces flag to the tricolour Ireland by this user edit. I don't think it was intentional. I've changed it back to the four provs flag. Wiki01916 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a vast improvemment Fasach Nua 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe again

Would you mind reverting to the stable version and then protecting FRINGE? SA has continued to edit war his new changes to the text, before achieving consensus on the talk page. Thanks again, ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you have refused to discuss the rationale behind your version on the talkpage. At this point, it looks like you are trying to get a meatpuppet to help you own the guideline by asking for this. ScienceApologist 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet again. I was hoping, per requests on talk page, that he'd discuss the reasons for his changes before inserting them. I want to know exactly how the changes might change the articles before they are inserted. [138] ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

God

Hello Jossi, thank you for your message and invitation to discourse with you on your talk page. I would like to add the following information to the "God" article under the entry "El" as a Name of God: According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 118), "It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'...If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the seventh century B.C.E. (See 2 Kings 23:15)"

However, there is no ability to edit that page, presumably because of sensitivity concerns. How do I raise this issue and/or make this suggestion? Thanks for your attention, Bartbandy 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, meaning that new users or anonymous users cannot edit it. We semi-protect pages when there is a lot of vandalism... I have unprotected it, so you should be able to edit it. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Berlin semi-protection

Hi Jossi -- thanks for stepping in on the Berlin stuff. Per the semi-protection though there's no evidence (or as I've seen it reason to believe) that Lear 21 was the one that vandalized the page anonymously. I just reverted his pre-block edit along with a vandalism edit. The vandalism was just the garden variety junk. In my opinion, unless there are reverts to the contested content during Lear's blocked time there's no reason for the semi-protection. Cheers! Scott.wheeler 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Lear 21

Your actions leading to the block of user:Lear 21 are unjustified and baseless. There has been NO vandalism. There has been NO violating of 3RR Rule. There has been neither disruptive editing, apart from reinserting monthlong sourced and established content at the Berlin article. The revert has also been credibly reasoned. There has been nothing done, justifiyng any blocking and neither an "out of proportion" one week block. Unprotect this account as soon as possible or a procedure of abusive administrator behaviour will be initiated. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use the template in your talk page to contest the block. In the meantime I am blocking this IP as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for fairness, but for all practical purposes the 3RR rule was broken. You reverted three times within 26 hours, plus there was one identical revert, referencing the same argument, from an anonymous Berlin-based IP address in that time span. Scott.wheeler 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene chip analysis

While I in no way object to your speedy deletion of GENE CHIP ANALYSIS, could I just ask what your comment of "WP:ORD" means? Cheers --Pak21 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistake, I mean WP:OR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TNE

Thanks for protecting the TNE page. Such an action was long overdue. Now that there's some protection from the constant vandalism by unregistered users, I'll actually work to improve the article and add some specific sources that I have access to. BlueGold73 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Jossi, I was tempted to curtly tell you that you are welcome to take your fascinating sarcasm elsewhere. Upon reflection, I realized that the most effective response to sarcasm is probably not more sarcasm. Instead I'll just share with you two things: first, my experience has been that sarcasm is a uniformly bad idea: someone almost always misunderstands me, and someone else will almost certainly be offended, no matter how mild I think I've been about it In the ensuing emotional reaction, any valid point I might have had is usually ignored. I have had so many negative experiences as a result of my own intensely sarcastic nature, both here at WP and in "real life"; I strongly recommend that editors avoid sarcasm altogether.

And secondly, your tiny sarcasm was completely inappropriate, and annoyed the crap out of me. I feel you have not given me the simple respect of actually reading my comments, which were in fact directly related to Alice Bailey's text, which is (I believe) somewhat pertinent to the article. I believe Kwork is the only one debating Zionism itself with no connection to the article. Had you not been sarcastic, I might have responded very differently. Eaglizard 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops...! It was not my intention to be sarcastic. I was trying to encourage users to take their off-topic discussions elsewhere. I guess that sometimes I am not aware of the unintended perceptions that my comments can incite on others. Will surely pay more attention in in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A serious question

The block on Kwork was justified I truly do believe that, but the fact that you did it is very troublesome indeed. You told us that the fact that you edited the Bailey article exempted you from acting as an admin pursuant to that article.

Does this mean that you know longer intend to edit that article or influence its contents. ? : Danny : Albion moonlight 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His block was unrelated to a content dispute in that article, as in fact, I agree with many of the points he made. I did what had to be done to afford a basic need for civility on that talk page. He can contest the block if he wants to, and you can do the same by posting a request at WP:ANI. And no, I do not intend to edit that article any longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi.

I think Kwork was in the wrong. I also urge you to consider asking for Jpgordons advice on this one, unless you have done so already.

I would have blocked him if I was and admin, But I would not have erased his comments until after he was unblocked.

You did good Jossi.

Albion moonlight 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for being so quick to revert the vandalism on my userpage. Alanraywiki 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21

Just so you know, I blocked an IP for being User:Lear 21 evading his block. —Angr 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh man... He he just could wait out his block.... Evading it will only mean longer and longer blocks.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Camping

Have fun, Will, and be mindful of the weather... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The weather is the least of our concerns (the prediction calls for low 70s, light winds, partly cloudy, 0% chance of precipitation). It's a very quick trip, I only mentioned it to stay with the "gone camping" theme of this weekend. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy. Hope I do not have to say "I told you so" :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark

I appreciate your efforts here and I agree with you completely. What I find odd is that some of the editors arguing with the allowance of the use of primary sourced court documents republished of Quackwatch to criticize the subject of this BLP, were the same editors against the allowance of the use of primary source court documents republished of Quackwatch to criticize the Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett.

Further, please note that Barrett has been involved in personal litigation with Clark. This only complicates the issue and demonstrates that Quackwatch is not a neutral source with this particular person.

Anyhow, any other thoughts that you have on the will be much appreciated. Thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Clark

I'm sorry, but ifd you're going to try to remove all criticism of her, that's vandalism. Have a read of WP:NPOV. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adam. No, that is not my intention. I only responded to a BLP/N notification, and yes, I am well aware of NPOV, and all other Wikipedia policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth, then, did you add a template asking that a well-known pseudoscientist, who claims all diseases are due to liver flukes, should have criticism removed to another article? It was that, not the BLP thing, that made me mark it as vandalism.

The BLP thing - It's at worst a very borderline case, and I think we should discuss it before simply burying it where noone will be able to find it to restore it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not follow. What template? As for the borderline BLP issue (which I do not believe it to be borderline), better to remove it first and then discuss. It will not dissapear as it is in the history. You know that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

please discuss and mve slooowly

"please discuss and mve slooowly" made me laugh. I thought I was moving slow! Oh well. Guess I can wait another 6 months if waiting for the first 6 months wasn't slow enough.  :) WAS 4.250 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:) -- Vassyana's proposal has some traction ... I would leave him to take the lead as he has been the only one capable to negotiate a way forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to User talk:Tony Spencer Hawk

Yes, I know, that Wikipedia may not be a social networking site, but if you want to delete his guestbook, I suggest you read something that Jimbo Wales once said:

“ You keep asking how they help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. ” — Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand the quote. -Goodshoped 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just want to be sure

FT2's edit here has your name. He says he's moving it. I just want to be sure you know about it. WAS 4.250 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Sorry to bother you again so soon but I have noticed that User: Lear 21 will not stop using anonymous IP addresses (In violation of his block) to edit the Berlin. I know this is not how you are supposed to request these sort of things but I don't know the proper way to request it but can you please semi-protect the Berlin article until his block is he will no longer be a problem. Daniel Chiswick 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets of Lear 21

I have found two sock puppets of User:Lear 21 [139] [140] and I put the usual suspected sock puppet warnings on the respective talk pages, and now I'm just letting you know since you are the one that seems to be dealing with him. Daniel Chiswick 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am tired of blocking all these sp accounts. Rather than taking time off during his initial block, that editor is digging a hole for himself that will be impossible to climb out of. What a waste of time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy just won't give up! I have found another sock puppet of his [141] and I put the suspected sock puppet warning up, so now I'm informing you again. I also reverted his edits and warned him to stop using sock puppet accounts because they will just be blocked and his edits reverted. Daniel Chiswick 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would extend his block, but that's just me. Daniel Chiswick 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion critieria

Hi, Jossi. I need your analysis of the WP:NOR policy concerning Images and whether the following image somehow violate Wikipedia policy and should be deleted:

File:Evp1.png

"Seems to me that NOR is being read wrongly and being used in an ongoing dispute thus violating WP:POINT in the process by said editors. The images themselves seem harmless enough, illustrate the paranormal topic, and show no indication of manipulation per say." (taken from my comments on the deletion page)

The following link is for the deletion of the original image based on what I deem above a faulty and misguided reading of the WP:NOR policy on images; motivated I think by an ongoing dispute between Paranormal editors and the RationalSkeptics editors. This current deletion scheme seems highly untoward considering there is presently a ongoing Arbcom case between the deletionist ScienceApologist and Martinphi a longstanding paranormal editor.

Image deletion link: [142]

I think your input would help to resolve matters either way; as you've been active at the policy pages. Thanks. --Northmeister 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know I have the stomach for another skeptic/paranormal dispute... But I will take a look and comment of I have anything to offer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I didn't realize the nature of the dispute when I stepped in to mediate between the two groups. It's a mess in need of longstanding unbiased editors without connection to the paranormal or RationalSkeptics. --Northmeister 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer. A self-generated image of something that is not sourced to a reliable publication is a violation of WP:NOR. If a similar image was available in a published source and it was reproduced as a facsimile of it for the purpose of a critique, we could apply [[WP:FAIR]. But this is not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for your input. --Northmeister 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you accidently deleted my comments and 'vote'? I went to change my 'vote' based on your analysis and found my comments were gone. Actually, I approve just not sure if you wanted to do that? Let me know, before I add my recent decision on 'delete'. --Northmeister 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I? I am so sorry. Please make your comment again. My apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us - lol. Thanks for the input once again. --Northmeister 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

Would you please take a look at this edit and let me know if I was guilty of POV pushing or if I was merely making the criticism be more relevant to the article at hand? Currently, I disagree with Adam's assessment, but I am open to hearing your thoughts. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I appreciate the time and effort you're taking in editing and discussing Quackwatch. I don't know how much you've looked into the archives and related discussions (RFCs, ArbComm, mediations, etc), but they're extensive. You've been pulled into a situation that is all too common with this and the other Quackwatch-related articles. There are a few editors regularly looking for people such as yourself to reopen previously discussed issues, in the hope that you'll find a way to change the article to these editors' pov. To make the situation worse, there are a few editors like QuackGuru who react very poorly to these situations.

Most of us are just tired with it all, and try not to get sucked into the never-ending gaming and disruptions by these editors. Sorry that you're getting such a bad reception. I for one am open to new approaches to dealing with these problems. --Ronz 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see.... A POV minefield indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm respecting your request not to canvass, but might I encourage you to post your RfC on the Fringe theories noticeboard since JSE is often cited in fringe articles? ScienceApologist 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm.... I would prefer to have comments from disinterested parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Come again? What makes you think the fringe theory noticeboard represents non"disinterested" parties? ScienceApologist 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I stated my preference. You do not need my permission to post a message on a noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidance needed?

I see that from an old version of User:Perspicacite's talk page you gave some good advice previously: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perspicacite&diff=prev&oldid=158858637

I am pretty brand new here but I see that you are an amazingly experienced and respected administrator, so I wonder if it would be more diplomatic if you, rather than I, pointed out that this reversion by User:Perspicacite to his old version of the article he had edited

1. lost a picture
2. lost conversion templates
3. changed (without consensus or discussion) to spellings and date formats to those prevalent in the USA, whereas Tokelau is a non self-governing colonial territory of the Commonwealth country of New Zealand and, therefore, the article has a strong connection to an WP:ENGVAR in addition to non US-English being the current variant.

If you're too busy I will understand, of course, and thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer.Alice.S 10:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr

You commented on WP:AN last week concerning a proposed 0RR/1RR regime on the article Northern Cyprus, which is being disrupted by a SPA, User:3meandEr. I've posted a request for a block or community ban on this user at WP:AN/I#User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 11:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch (another Barrett article)

I just want to say that you and Antelan have done a good job controlling the environment and actually making things productive there. I want to bring this article to your attention because it too is a Barrett article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal First some major clean up to archives is needed on the talk page as you will see if you decide to take a look at the article. I would archive myself but I don't know how to, I only know how to delete or strike out. I have a robot doing my archiving with the help of other editors setting me up. I am one of the slowest learners I think of Wikipedia (but I do have some wonderful editors who understand why and help me when needed). But anyways, it is a mess since both persons in the article were posting to the article. It was a messy time. Anyways, this is just to let you know it exists. I think the talk page violates WP:BLP big time.

I hope bringing this to your attentions is ok. If it isn't please just delete my message. I usually do clean up work and a little bit to the Crohn's article. For the record I also sent this same message to Antelan. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the page as requested. You can learn about archiving at WP:ARCHIVE (btw, we are slow on one thing or another....) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I have saved the archive links with my others to read and help me remember. Thanks for saying everyone is slow in one thing or another, this really made me smile. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish BLP issue

Jossi, you speak Spanish, right? Can you peek in on this? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're online; as I read the sources, it's unclear to me that *he* said those things, or that the gay magazines are merely reporting the rumors. They way it's written seems sly/tricky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious

You asked the question "do we need each episode of The Simpsons to be a featured article?" and my answer to that is: No. Very few episodes would have the content and background info to make FA status, and most of the post-season 9 episodes would likely have a hard time making GA status. I'm curious about your point. So there are 7 FA Simpsons articles, does it matter? Do you want us to stop working on them or something? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Scorpion, no.... You guys are doing great work. It was only a comment that I see great editorial talent not being been applied to some other articles that are not in the realm of pop culture. If you can make a Simpson's episode into an FA, you can certainly make one on Parthenogenesis. : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of our members do work on other projects and have gotten articles for other projects promoted (I myself have worked on and nominated over 20 FLs), but working on Simpsons articles happens to be our niche. Either way, it's nice to see our little project get some recognition. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Self-published and questionable sources

You have been reverting my changes without discussion, which I found quite rude. I would like to repeat on this page a question posed by another user: On the basis of the self-published statements policy, should the following text be removed from the Campus Watch article?

Founded in 2002, its website states that it: "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. ... Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."

If you agree that it should not be removed, then perhaps you could help explain or amend the policy. Thank you. — DavidMack 04:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello David. I reverted you once, on an addition to a policy page which was not discussed. If you found that to be rude, please read the header at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability which advises editors that "Before you update the page, consider if changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus." As for your question, note that self published sources can be used in articles about themselves within the caveats explained in the policy, see WP:SELFPUB. In your example, there is no reason to delete that content as it clearly fits within these caveats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: Thank you for replying. That proposal has been on the discussion page for a while now, but there have been no replies to my earnest enquiries and requests for help -- only the reversions. [143][144] In the example above, suppose that a critic insisted that Campus Watch was a corrupt organization and that its website statements were unduly self-serving and therefore inadmissable? How would you respond to that critic? That is the problem I'm dealing with on another page. — DavidMack 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That text is not unduly self-serving, IMO. Many corporations or organizations have their mission statement in their articles and that is OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we're getting closer to the issue I have been asking about. In the article on convicted felon Kevin Trudeau, it says "According to Kevin Trudeau, [his] book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." Now there's a self-serving statement. Is it acceptable? And if so why, and by what policy? — DavidMack 02:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I'd appreciate an answer. — DavidMack 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss these issues in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I understand that you're a respected editor, but I couldn't get a response from you on the article's talk page, other than reverting the changes. Nevertheless, I shall open up the debate again on the talk page when I next get a chance. — DavidMack 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

References Article

I thought you'd get a kick out of this irony, the page on references, reference, is tagged for needing additional citations. DigitalCatalyst 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See? I knew you'd appreciate that.DigitalCatalyst 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lestouts.com

I see you figured it out  :). I was going to do the same thing when I noticed you already working on it. Honestly I've always done old fashioned salting so watching you was instructive for me as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:) The only think I do not find is the salted template.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that didn't cascade protection the way I thought it would... I can still create the page with a non-admin account. Oh, the template is {{deletedpage}}--Isotope23 ^talk 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm indeed.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is working now.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, must have been a caching issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yes. Purging the page did it. And BTW you cannot use the {{deletedpage}} anymore... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.

I really appreciated your email, too. Though we had no idea what sort of trolls were in the offing at the time! ;-)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Joy of Sect

Please stop. The bickering taking place between you and Curt is overwhelming the article. Not only is it tiresome to read through all that just to find out what is wrong with the article, but I'm sure Raul will get tired of it as well when he comes to review the outcome. I don't mean to be harsh, but the personal fight is detracting from the argument. That includes dismissing any opposition to the article, or opposition to your opposing views of the article reaching FA status. Yes, I'm leaving this message with both you, as this is a joint problem. We understand all that you see is wrong with the article, so you don't need to repeat it over and over again for Curt's benefit, because Curt isn't the one that decides the outcome--as you pointed out to Curt in your comments, Raul decides. Raul knows the criteria, and he understands what they are in context to what you find wrong with the article. Please just leave it at that. I bring this up because you and Curt amount to 84% of the discussion on the FAC, and the majority of that is basically boiling down to "your wrong, I'm right" debates. You're both good editors, so let's just let the FAC continue on its own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I have just done that, even before reading your note. I left the discussion with the satisfaction that my comments have actually improved the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Message

Email for you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for intervening with the Eliska Amor vandal

In the last three days that user continued to vandalize the Eliska Amor article, as well as the Mary-Kate Olsen, Ashley Olsen and Leonardo DiCaprio articles, in fact if you back track the edit history on the Eliska article you will find that user had vandalized the article more than 50 times in only three days! Though it's an ISP registered to a school, it's clear from the edit patterns to Eliska, Mary-Kate, Ashley and Leonardo's articles that it was the same user each time. I just wanted to thank you for your diligence in implementing the block - hopefully they will learn. --Rosario 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi,

You blocked User:Nicolharper for violating the 3rr per my request/report. The 24 hours appears to be up, but s/he may still be blocked per a comment to me and this for some reason invisible request.

Thanks, WLU 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac

I have asked for comments about Jasenovac and Holocaust on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Looking on your last changes in article I am interested to hear your thinking why is Jasenovac Holocaust concentration camp (nobody question that Jasenovac is extermination camp) ? Can you please write your comments in this discussion . Thanks --Rjecina 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My blog

Me? Copy edit other people? Have you seen all of the typos people find in my articles? That's one reason I appreciate that anyone can edit Wikipedia. But thanks for the compliment. :) -- llywrch 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, copyedit, not proof... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

reintroduced article sections

Dear Jossi, You may wish to weigh in on this discussion. Renee 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi for your swift work as usual. It seems that the creator of this new article just deleted is 4d-don under a new name. See this, which was edited by 4d-don welcoming people to his "new" page on Feb 15. We can't tell if he edited as both identities on the SRCM/Sahaj Marg pages because those article/talk pages have been deleted, but can see that he edited as both within a 1-2 month timespan. He seemed to be open about having the two accounts so not sure what to make of this if anything? Renee 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review of Theobald of Bec

Changed the references and notes as you requested, anything else you saw that needed attention? Thanks for the review, btw! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Hi Jossi. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumi

Hi there and thanks for your note! There exist a political tension behind naming the poet. Different website, based on their political interests use different names. The common consensus is what I used. The name was used officially by UNESCO and and three countries that are involved (Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey) in all joint documents issued this year (which is named after this poet, the year of rumi). Any other name will be POV. Please see for instance UNESCO's webpage. [145][146] Cheers. Mitso Bel 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I was told differently, but I respect your authority. I'm sorry, I was just trying to help. CelticGreen 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

I noticed you worked with the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not work in that article. I may have commented in an admin-related action. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Marinidil

Keeps deleting your warnings, my warnings. Anything on his talk page. I agreed with your one revert, no problem, but he keeps deleting all warnings and continues to be abusive. CelticGreen 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my comment there. I didn't think the comment you left was one that should have to stay on the page, but I guess I was wrong. Can you clear this up for me though? I thought only tags like Template:Socksuspectnotice, Template:Blockedsockpuppet, Template:Sockpuppeteer, etc had to stay on the pages, but warnings about sockpuppetry (like the one you left) could be removed as any other warnings can. If you can just explain it to me for future I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I requested the user to leave the notice for a while so that other admins can have the information needed to assess the situation if he persisted. I can see that the user has been now blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. The only reason I got involved is that it seemed like any other warning out there, and obviously warnings are allowed to be removed. Thanks for explaining that one to me. - Rjd0060 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"OR and POV Nightmare"

Hi Jossi, A few weeks ago, you were kind enough to drop by the Catholicism and Freemasonry article in reply to a request for comment that I had posted at WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. At that time, you expressed the opinion that the article was an "OR and POV nightmare" and that it should either be deleted or stubified. I agree and, following your comments, I decided to be bold and cut about half of the article to get rid of the most objectionable material. Unfortunately, several editors just don't understand how bad the OR and POV is (or don't care) and have now reverted my cut. They are now asking for a line by line examination of the article to review what is objectionable. I need your help. You are one of the more respected editors at NOR and will do a much better job of explaining what is wrong with this article than I can. Would you be willing pop over again and opine with a bit more detail? Blueboar 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problems

Hello Jossi, I am having difficultly with formatting on an article called Landmark Education litigation. The bottom half of the article seems to be linked to the top part of the article in some weird way. I spent a very frustrating hour yesterday trying to make one edit. Each time the preview looked different than what actually got changed. Can you please take a look at it. I did not intend to delete the bottom half of the article but I am unable to get the change to the section I was working on to work without somehow messing up the bottom part of the article. It is easy to tell what I am trying to do from the edit history. I appreciate your help. Thank you. Triplejumper 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You had an open <ref> tag at the end of that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes all it takes is another set of eyes. Triplejumper 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

Sorry, I went to bed just after that block. Basically, he did this huge rewrite of the first section of the article to eliminate or minimise all criticism, and even to say that it worked [147], then began editwarring over a PO'V tag. If he wasn't at ArbCom for it, and if he hadn't done this sort of thing at Homeopathy in the past, I wouldn't have blocked him, but someone up at Arbcom for doing that sort of thing, with clear movements towards a judgement against him on that behalf, really should know better. That said, I will admit that I've been under a lot of stress lately - the government has been buggering me over rather badly over support during a period of illness - so it's possible I may not be thinking clearly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see... I will unblock him. The 24hrs should be enough for that behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Hi jossi. I find you very reasonable in general, so I wanted to address your comment here, regarding my block of TShilo12, with you directly. You wrote: "Why not to just ask an uninvolved party to look at the situation? I just do not understand what is the rush to put oneself in a compromising situation with these type of blocks." I have to say that I thought I was asking uninvolved parties to look at the situation by posting it to AN/I before issuing the block. Obviously ChrisO's response was not neutral, but after receiving one response, from a neutral admin whose judgement I respect, and no objection I issued the block and welcomed further review, going so far as to preemptively sanction unblocking if there was a feeling I'd erred. I don't see this as being in a "rush to put myself in a compromising position"; quite the opposite. I understand if you disagree with the block (though, as you're a consistent advocate of civility and good conduct, I'm a bit surprised if you're willing to turn a blind eye to TShilo12's behavior), but I don't understand your comment that I failed to ask for uninvolved input, or was in a "rush" to block someone. You're welcome to respond here, or simply erase this if you don't feel like continuing a discussion about this. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mastcell. Maybe I should have used a better wording... What I meant to say is that it is always better in these circumstances to let another admin to perform the block. That way there is no drama and no one can come back to you with claims about the circumstances of the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fair, though I don't think I'm "involved" with TShilo12 in any way that precludes me from acting. The only interactions I can recall with him are a) warning him after his first round of unsupported personal attacks, and b) agreeing with you, at the ArbCom, that he should not be subject to sanctions. The accusations of bad faith are troubling, especially as they come after I took pains to present the block for community feedback rather than acting unilaterally. I can accept that perhaps I could have allowed another admin to perform the block in the interest of reducing drama. But let me ask you - what do you think of User:IronDuke and User:6SJ7's comments on AN/I? Do they bear some responsibility for generating drama? Do you agree with their explicit assertion that I'm motivated by a political grudge against "pro-Israel" editors? Do you think it's a valid tactic to attack the blocking admin with those sort of unsupported accusations to turn attention away from what TShilo12 actually said? Do you think TShilo12's behavior is excusable as "blowing off steam"? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but if the issue is generating drama, then I would submit that the block was actually a fairly minor incident until two editors who dislike me showed up and started trying to settle a score by attacking me in an ad hominem fashion, while making excuse after excuse for TShilo12. Do you think that sort of behavior makes Wikipedia a better place? Is it consistent with WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE? MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at this), Matcell, admin actions are open to the scrutinity of anyone and everyone, and there is always someone that will disagree with our actions as admins. My point, is that we should not put ourselves in a situation in which our actions may seem to be not coming from a clean space. We are not dealing only with facts, but with perceptions; and the latter are much more difficult to manage than the former. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with scrutiny, or with people disagreeing with my admin actions. I do have a problem with editors focusing not on the substance of the issue and the merits of the block, but on trying to spuriously position me as a "political opponent" of "pro-Israel" editors. My disapproval of IronDuke's and 6SJ7's behavior in the ArbCom case does not make me "involved" with TShilo12, nor does it make me "anti-Israel". Only editors who have a deep-seated view of Wikipedia as a battlefield would try to opportunistically conflate the two. I respect your opinion and will certainly take it into consideration in terms of how I do things in the future. Let me ask you, though, since your words probably carry more weight than mine with TShilo12, IronDuke, and 6SJ7: if you think think they could have handled this situation a bit differently or more constructively, please have a word with them as well (off-wiki or on, doesn't matter to me). MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do strongly believe that any public comments about our personal views, or about the personal views of others, are not useful (to say the least), and create the wrong type of environment for creating encyclopedic content. I also believe that when we make these comments in AN or other such fora, we need to live with the consequences of these comments. That is all what I can say to the people involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for being willing to discuss the matter with me. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The answers on my RfA

Thanks for answering the inquiry. I named the items which I considered to be the "most core". I didn't think anybody just wanted to see me regurgitate the Five Pillars off a page somewhere: so I stated those which I think in the long run seem to be the most vital. That doesn't mean I don't believe in and try to observe NOR and BLP as well. --Orange Mike 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Mike, but my view is that the three core policies of NOR, V and NPOV work together and cannot be asessed in isolation from each other. That is why these policies carry the caveat:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Hi Jossi. I revised Wikipedia:Sock puppetry per the talk page discussion. I believe the new addition closes the gray ares between socks/inappropriate alternate account users as well as keeps socks from arguing that they are legitimate socks. Please review and revise as needed. -- Jreferee t/c 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How did you do that.... the page is protected... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. I posted some questions and answers as to how the inappropriate alternate account section of the Sock puppetry policy should work. I think that is what we all had in mind on the talk page. If not, please let me know. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I revised the policy to cover this situation, but am not so certain the language I used does that. If an editor creates account A, then discards account A for new account B, then discards account B for new account C, there are two possibilities. Either this person has three main accounts, two of which are no longer used (in which case the policy should not apply to any of his accounts) or this person's account B is an alternate account of account (A-C). It might be enough to say in the policy "let consensus figure it out" instead of puting language in the policy that may be used to skirt the intent of the policy. Less is more, sometimes. : ) Anyway, my brain is tapped and I would appreciate any clarity you can provide to the policy. -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the progress you are making with the wording is getting very good. The concern about "discarded accounts" has another implication that is covered in the "Clean start". The problem is that bad habits die hard, and editors that discard previous accounts to avoid scrutinity and re-engage in disruption should not be encouraged to do so by whatever we say in the policy. See WP:BEANS... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate some advice

Hi Jossi. I'm a bit shocked to learn that IPSOS has been indef blocked. If this is due to his involvement with the BKWSU article then I am also concerned but it seems there are other factors I am not aware of relating to another arbcom case so in that case I have to keep an open mind.

I would be interested to know what you're assessment of the situation regarding the article is. Do you have any specific advice for me on how best to proceed? I've appreciated the involvement of editors with no BKWSU connection such as Utcursch, Reneeholle and IPSOS to make the more drastic required improvements to the article but there are some very determined accounts who systematically undo these changes and/or push POV edits without seeking consensus in any meaningful way on the basis that they are indisputably right. How do I deal with that? We are trying to preserve a version of the article reached by consensus but there doesn't seem to be any way to achieve that without also being accused of edit waring. I feel like this is a no-win situation. Key decision points were reached by Rfc. How is it possible to preserve these decisions when they keep getting ripped apart.

I also have seen that you also get some flak on/off Wiki for your affiliation to an NRM so hopefully you can appreciate the situation I am in although you probably haven't been subjected to a sustained, intense propaganda campaign about it as I seem to be experiencing. I posted a complaint on WP:ANI but the response has been along the lines that I shouldn't be editing the article due to COI. Now what do I do? I tried leaving the article for Green108 to edit alone for a while and this was my analysis of the result. If there was some system whereby I could be assured the article would be supervised against POV and bad faith editing then I would gladly retire, but as yet I haven't seen a viable, working solution.

Look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have on this. Best regards Bksimonb 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that IPSOS has been blocked due to violation of WP:SOCK. My advice would be to make suggestions in the talk page instead of editing the article directly, if indeed you are in a conflict of interest situation. Note that having a COI, does not preclude you from editing the article, just that you need to be very mindful of editing within the content policies of Wikipedia. In my experience, patience, perseverance, civility, and avoiding at all costs any edit warring or any perceptions of such, will result in the best outcome that is a neutral and well sourced article on the subject. If there are editors in that article that want to push a certain agenda, involve other editors via RfCs, Wikipedia:Peer review and other such methods. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Thanks for the useful advice. I must admit I didn't consider peer review before. I have used article Rfcs successfully until now but preserving the outcome of those decisions without appearing to be one half of an edit war is proving to be a challenge. I guess a peer review will help establish what actually is a consensus version of the article.

Thatcher131 has highlighted that he would need further authorisation to ban disruptive editors that the current probation terms allow. Will draft something to help in that area too.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please discuss on WT:BLP and self-published sources?

Can you help reach consensus on the talk page, please? See, Brimba pointed out [148] that WP:BLP says "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." That isn't really what you, or SlimVirgin, or even Brimba himself, have been saying about "non-controversial is all right", if I summarized correctly in User:AnonEMouse/BLPSPS. It is pretty clear that many, if not most of our Wikipedia:Featured articles about living persons violate that. All I want is for the policy to say what we actually do, and what you, and SlimVirgin and even Brimba have been saying it should: to pick your words: "I do not see what the problem would be with using that source for this". Right now BLP does say there is a problem, a big one: "may never be used" is pretty clear it does need to be removed even if not contentious. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That can be discussed there, yes. My view is that the policy should say what is says now: "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. " If there are specific situations that requires making an exception, these cases can be discussed by editors of a specific article when this may not apply.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This wording is compatible with WP:SPS, and more stringent given that these are BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RS

Can it be re-merged? I think it can. The only novel info that is of any value is the exceptional claims description and the convenience links section. The former can be brought to V and the latter to CITE. All the rest of it is redundant fluff. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Count me in. I am for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've both been through ATT. Obviously we need to avoid the main mistake that happened there: not informing Jimbo clearly and early enough. The idea has been unleashed on RS talk. Let's wait for a couple of days of comment (I think it will be supportive) and then notify him directly. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure it will be needed. RS was never official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I just don't want any late surprises. I've begun the dismantling: convenience links moved to CITE and 'Why use reliable sources?' shortened and brought into V. Next consideration is the exceptional claims description. Marskell (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi would you agree that at a minimum we should drop a note on the village pump? Marskell (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With my usual impatience I have gone ahead and started a pump thread. We really do need to let people know. And I'm still very iffy about proceeding without posting to Jimbo. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

VP is good. I will also drop a line on the mailing list. After all that is done and if there is wide support, you can email Jimbo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

His talk page might be better, given how many people watch it. Or we could do both.

We're there, really: RS is empty. Let me know how the mailing list goes (I spend enough time on the main site and avoid the extra forums). Marskell (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets

Thanks for taking the time to look at that! -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure... but in cases in which you are personally involved, you should not exercise your admin privileges. That reflects poorly on you and on all Wikipedia:Administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry! -- But|seriously|folks  04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Best way to respond

Hi Jossi. It seems my friend is back on the BKWSU article. A new account, Ugesum has done a blanket revert to his preferred version with the discussion page comment, "The BKs just try to whitewash everything away. They dont care. They bend rules. Sorry to say. Not so good in English. Ecsuse me. Ugesum" and with the also somewhat inflammatory edit comment, "rv BKWSU PR Team version". I don't want to be again in a position where I'm seen as one side of a two-sided edit war so I would appreciate if you have any suggestions on how I should best respond to this specific event. If I don't hear in 24 hours then I will have to take a chance that I am (hopefully) doing the right thing and revert the article.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely ridiculous. The same person keeps coming back in different incarnations. I filed this just now. If he would discuss changes first and work on consensus it would be a different story. Renee (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is the same person, or doing exactly the same type of reverts, you can post a request at WP:SSP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that will do anything? AWachowski filed a totally bogus SSP report and it was referred to the arbcomm notice board. My ANI report was just referred there too as was Bksimonb's former ANI report. I just filed this there but I'm not sure what to do with the repetitive, persistent, identical changes? (and the changes are identical between AWachowski/LWachowski/Ugesum) I know you have lots of experience in dealing with this kind of stuff so advice is appreciated. Renee (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter

Prechter employee User:Rgfolsom has just massively re-edited this article and deleted the NPOV tag. I know you were watching this one at one time, but you've had a lot on your plate, and this one was quiet for a while. --Orange Mike 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained article move

Hi, Jossi; I need to bring this to someone who understands the issue in Spanish. By moving it from the question mark to the explanation point (contrary to sources and with no discussion), the article is now POV, implying that the king demanded rather than asked (that it was an imperative rather than a query). All of the sources I have seen use a question mark, and since I'm not an admin, I can't move it back. I'm also not sure if I can post a request at Requested moves, since I don't know if CieloEstrellado will challenge. I also posted to Titoxd, since he speaks Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tito got to it already, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested in following, CieloEstrellado disputes the title. [149] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Just want to say a genuine "Thanks!" for providing questions, and for straightforward responses to my answers and others' queries. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you will. Good luck and happy mopping....! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Thanks.. I may not be an admin, and thus I dont have the ability to re-delete it.. but I do have the right to set it up however I want it set up.

If i need to create a new account to keep that user & talkpage deleted/cleared, then thats what I'll do. Lsi john (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Please do not do a cross-namespace redirect. You can leave the pages blanked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

explain the definition of cross-namespace.. and show me where the rule is which prevents it. I want the page deleted, not blanked and not redirected. It was deleted and someone decided they outrank my request to delete it. Is it my talkpage or not?

If i have no other option, then please delete my talkpage and my userpage, just like Durova deleted Smee's and I will not edit from this account again. Lsi john (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your user page has been deleted. User talk pages are seldom deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA with Jesus Army

The Jesus Army article as it stands seems to me to have multiple issues. It strikes me that it deviates from the encyclopedic approach, gives little information and majors overmuch on the Criticism section.

A large proportion of the material, particularly, in the Criticism section is Original Research or not Verifiable, quoting self-published sources, blogs and posts from forums.

When I started to edit on Wikipedia, I was aware of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but missed WP:COI. As the Jesus Army's webmaster, I guess I have a COI. Since I had that pointed out to me, I have refrained from editing there. However at least one other major contributor has a history of opposition to the Jesus Army.

The article needs taking in hand, ideally with a rewrite by a neutral editor. I know you have shown some interest in this area in the past, so I hoped you might be able to help take this forward.

More details: Talk:Jesus_Army#Request_for_Assistance, with further comments on User:John_Campbell/Jesus_Army

John Campbell 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement, but I'm not sure how far we are getting with achieving NPOV with recent partisan edits. Could you look by again, please! John Campbell (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Status

Dammit. It had been fairly smooth sailing.

Have you received any comments on your mailing list note? Marskell (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Only Aude's comments same as in Dammit, basically that newbies will understand better the concept of "Reliable sources" that the concept of verifiability. That is easily dealt with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jossi, I have a question that I hope you have time to answer. I just want to know if I can vote and/or post a comment to this page [[150]]. I watch the ANI page, BLP and other pages of this sort to help me learn more about things going to help me with my own editing. I saw the first post from the beginning when it was announced that the editor was indefinitely blocked and the tornado of activities that have occurred since. If I read correctly, then my being just an editor does not allow me to make any posts to this. I am just try to clarify to make sure I am correct in what I read at the top of it. Thank you for any clarifications you have for me. You can respond here if you would like or on my talk page. No rush on my part about this, I just, well let me just say I'd like to vote on one of the proposals on it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a !vote, and you can definitively comment on any RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo

Done. I thought it best to say it on his talk page rather than his e-mail, for the sake of transparency. Marskell (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He commented on threads immediately above and below but not on the one I posted. This usually indicates he doesn't think it worth his time and we're sort of rudderless without him. What if we made RS a kind of disambiguation page? Link to sections in policy that are relevant but don't try to offer novel advice? Marskell (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

The use of reliable sources is central Wikipedia's content policies, and this guideline serves to disambiguate various mentions:

• The principal description of reliable sources is the sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• Reliable sources are necessary to avoid original research as described in the sources section of Wikipedia:No original research.
• Reliable sources are especially critical in dealing with biographical information on living people; see the sources section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
• See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

---

This could work as intermediate step. Marskell (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean retain it as essentially a disambiguation page? It's a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you said that above. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Count me in support as well. Brimba (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy this over to WT:RS to avoid confusion. Marskell (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Andries

Jossi, I would like to have Andries banned. Apart from the misinformation he is spreading on talk pages and POV editing, he is deliberately falsifying his editing when challenged ie. distorting a cited quote, changing the edit when challenged and then writing in the talk pages that he cited the source verbatim (never made the edit). Unless you check the edit history, it looks as if he was incorrectly challenged. I'm tired of his antics.Momento (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If he continues with that kind of behavior, it will only make that a more plausible end-game scenario for him. Given enough rope... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith when I made at worst only a minor inaccuracy? Andries (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" Andries? Your "minor" inaccuracy completely distorts a major aspect of Rawat's teachings. And you do it time and time again. And in this case, you lied on the talk page about it.Momento (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to Andrie's talk page. Andries: asking editors to assume good faith in your case, and given your past history, is a asking a lot. Demonstrate that you care about this project more than you care about your POV, and you may regain that right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Hey, I see you objected to Betacommandbot's recent tagging of one of your images. Thing is, unless you use precisely the name of the article for which your fair use rationale applies, BCBot will get you. I've changed the template (on one of your images - used in Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour) to match. I suggest you do the same to all other images you've uploaded to prevent them being deleted. There's certainly nothing personal going on, just protection of Wikipedia via the fair use policy. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you need more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For the support. Could you refactor to something more genteel? I'm glad you care. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for warning Dseer

Thanks much, Jossi, for warning Dseer about personal attacks. He did seem a bit over the top with that one. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He could have easily made the same point without the vitriol. WP:CIVIL is not just a nicety, but an official policy of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Jossi - email

I know you are busy but please can I as you about my email, as I haven't heard back from you. (Please dont reply here.)Bristol Sycamore 13:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anay disp detail.jpg

Your art is exquisite! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. With so much wikiing around, not much time left for art... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

You asked comment on the issue of including the JSE comments by Kauffmann. It seems that consensus on that issue was never reached. So what happens if consensus is never reached? The information doesn't get published? --Anthon01 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you missed this post or have chosen not to comment. If the latter is the case, then no comment would be sufficient. Otherwise, I hope you get this.:) --Anthon01 14:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, you need to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi

The other encyclopedias have the full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, not Mohandas Gandhi (except for Encarta, which has both). See my post: Talk:Mohandas_Gandhi#Full_name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, be bold and move it to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:) I can't see the darn "move" tab on that page. I am assuming you could do it because you are an admin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now you need to check that there are no double redirects and fix them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Great. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I am flattered. I'm working on two long articles right now and don't want to lose my focus. How about if we discuss this in a couple of months time? That will also give me some time to think about it. (In the meantime I may have some questions for you about the commitment involved in terms of time etc.). Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Ping me via email any time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly redirect

Four pages of haraunging for an ANI post I didnt make by that person - after 5-6 requests for them to stop bothering me. For an ANI I didnt make - JzG put it up there. I'm the wrong person to tell to cool it. I don't want Crum to write to me anymore, ever. I'm worn out. Pls. Explain this to them. Thanks in adv.85.5.180.9 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, I would think that you need to cool it. Take a break and come back in a few days. It helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"

DYK

On 2 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nyttend Behavior

User NYTTEND has threatened to block me for edits that I made attempting to remove BLP concerns, which you agreed with me on. I made these edits in good faith, and in fact, even asked Jimbo on his talk page how issues like this should be handled. I find it very unfair that I would be banned for trying to protect BLP. Please let me know what you think. --Jkp212 18:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your administrative action was mentioned as one superior (IMO) to that taken by one of the parties in the case. GRBerry 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I think parties in that case do not need my involvement. If there is anything I am missing please email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

It is in no way "original research" to accurately describe a photo. The photo shows a riot policeman wielding a baton in the direction of a photographer. We do not say that a photo of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center "purportedly" depicts a terrorist attack. The photo itself stands as evidence. FCYTravis 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The OR violation was in the wording used ... We do not know who that policeman was attacking. I made an edit there to say where the photo was published (see the source in the image page) and what it purports to show. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit works. What is needed is attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

That works for me. FCYTravis 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Request

Could you please include your thoughts at the following request for comment:

Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon.

Thank you ---Jkp212 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the case. I left you this comment on the talk page for peter yarrow:

Thank you for your input.. When you say " I do not think we cannot not mention this incident" does that mean you think it's ok for the article to leave out the incident? I'm just a bit confused by the double negatives.. Thank you in advance for your clarification. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, thank you for your comments on the yarrow talk page. The discussion has now moved to what exactly the sentence should be, since a consensus believes it should be included. I agree with you that it should be short to avoid undue weight. Could you give a proposed inclusionary sentence on the talk page? Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am taking a little wikibreak, will be back tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance please look at the current version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Yarrow, and if possible, share your proposed wording (or thoughts) on the discussion page. Greatly appreciated, --Jkp212 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Darko Pančev

Hi. I noticed that you reverted the removal of some very non-NPOV material by an anon IP in the above article. The passage which they removed (and which has again been removed by a different anon IP) is completely subjective speculation and description from one person's point of view, and not neutral at that. To compound the problem, the whole passage of text is unsourced, and would require that plus a re-write before it was suitable to be included in a biography of a living person. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your taking the time to comment on my RfA - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast. I've answered your question. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Question

Thanks for your question at my RfA. I have now answered it and would be glad to answer any other questions you may have. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank-you for your question at my RFA. I have responded and would welcome any further questions or comments you may have. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey K Hadden

12 months ago you added a "unbalanced" tag to Jeffrey K. Hadden which was removed after a month with no further edits. Do you intend to revisit that page? (It reads like it is unbalanced.) John Campbell (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look into this

Could you please look at this edit and clarify whether removal of that comment was proper? Did it violate the ArbCom or was it a proper move. In any case it is always proper to guard against the talk-page turning into a forum, but I'm not sure whether this particular edit was a correct move. What do you think? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea... Can you email me the diffs? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow Discussion page

Would you please re-enter the discussion on the Peter Yarrow discussion page. Your input would be helpful David in DC (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the entire talkpage?

Hi Jossi, in this difference you revert my edit with a summary that asks whether it is original research. Well, there are kilobytes of data on the talkpage that at least indicate it is a questionable wording. I did not see you active in these conversations so I'm wondering if you will just assume good faith and give a self-revert. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussions and remember the discussions that happened before. I stand by that edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Jossi. This is not WP:OR. SA may have a compelling reason to remove the text but WP:OR is not it. Your opinion on the talk page would be appreciated. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

re:Quackwatch

I'd like to find a way to discuss this with you in a way you find appropriate. If you could, restore the previous discussion, removing anything you object to. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss here, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

restored discussion:

Please participate in the discussions rather than simply reverting. In this case, the discussions stretch over three weeks. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These "warnings" are unnecessary, I made only one edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I agree with your removing the warning and just leaving the justification.

As you already know, the article is almost always under dispute and the disputes are highly contentious. My concern is that the information you changed is the very information that has been under dispute for over three weeks. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet page

Hi, please see User:The Evil Spartan/Suspected sock puppets/Scibaby‎. Thanks for the message. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks jossi, I missed you too. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR comment

Hi Jossi - While I completely agree with you to not respond to snarky comments, I do hope you continue to share your thoughts about Fullstop's substantive points. Your points have been helpful to me in thinking through these issues. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carl Hewitt

Jossi, could you take a look at a BLP issue as an uninvolved admin?

There has been trouble for a long time on Carl Hewitt (an American academic), including an ArbCom case, with claims that he is being harassed by Wikipedians, and counter-claims that he's using the page to self-promote. I'm not familar with the case, so I don't know the details. The ArbCom ruled against him and banned him from making edits about himself or his work. The article is indefinitely protected as a result of the dispute.

Someone tipped off a freelancer, and the Observer published a brief story alleging that Hewitt was misusing Wikipedia. Now, people keep posting links to the article on the talk page, and restoring it when it's removed. It looks like an attempt to spread the story further, using the talk page because the article is locked.

I've therefore removed the link, and protected the talk page on BLP grounds (I'm intending the protection for a short time only), because the article can't be edited, and the Observer piece is too self-referential to be used as a source anyway, so there's no need to keep discussing it on talk. Viridae supported the protection, but others are objecting. Some discussion here, but the main discussion is here. An opinion from you would be very helpful, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, I am aware of the ArbCom case. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding the evaluating sources page, I'll look at it properly later. At first glance, it's a good idea to get it away from NOR. It depends what it ends up saying. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize for my attitude. I see that many of the problems here are due to a lack of good communication and misinterpretations on both sides. I think your conception of "evaluation" is a good one, and we should try to work it into the page, however it is different from the one I was talking about, which I will try to expand upon when I have some more free time. Thanks again. —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems.... Thanks for the note. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

and now for something completely different

Jossi, did you hand-code the html for your user page? or is there a wiki template somewhere? i love tabs but am not willing to spend a lot of time twinkling with css (especially mediawiki css) just for my user page here. but i would love to find an attractive tab-based template i could apply. --Lquilter (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... there is an angel wikipedian that did the pages for me. She is one of the best coders, and a the nicest person. You may want to ask her... Sharon User:Phaedriel... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bleep

So, what is the rule for things like "Dr." before a name? Biographies obviously doesn't apply, and I seem to remember something about using it only the first mention of the name. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to specify Dr. or any other title, if the person is notable and has a Wikipedia article. If he/she does not, using Dr. Firstname Lastname in the first instance, and Lastname subsequently, would be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's common sense, but does "it" say that anywhere? And, if it doesn't, shouldn't it, and where would we put it in it...it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Academic_titles, which could be expanded to include the above exception ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ok, that's the one SA found. Need one that isn't for biographies, don't we? A guide should be made, if people are going to make an issue of it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So fix it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Food for reversion: [151] Probably did something wrong, I don't know it's not my area. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Article about Carolyn Doran

Is it time now (now that a story about her has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABCNews.com, etc.) to allow the community to write an informed article about Carolyn Doran? --Lord on Canary (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Carolyn Doran ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to User:Hoary, who keeps telling people to discuss at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Carolyn_Doran instead. Mixed messages aren't helpful. --Fandyllic (talk) 10:08 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

Brainwashing and useful knowledge

Hi, Jossi. Long time no see ...

Thanks for reminding us about the APA and their "imprimatur" (such a lovely Latin word). I also like the two quotes on group process on your user page, starting with SLR's mini-essay.

I'm working on a documentary about the New World Encyclopedia. The documentary and encyclopedia should both be released to the public in early 2008. NWE will of course be free-licensed, as most of its articles were copied from Wikipedia and that fact-checked, etc.

In coming months, I'll be trying to shift my focus from scientific/environmental controversies to milder topics such as Unification Theology and various projects that Rev. Moon started.

Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ed, long time no see... Interesting project you are working on, I will check it out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

In the interests of moving forward, I have made a rather long post on the Talk:Rachel Marsden page. It is my hope that you (and others) will participate in the discussion. Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

SYN

Too tight. Many people have raised similar objections on WT:NOR.

If reliable source A says all men are mortal and reliable source B says Socrates is a man then no editor is allowed to synthesize these to say Socrates is a mortal. Nor any other similar conclusion. As I understand it NOR was originally designed and created to thwart those who would come up with wild theories in physics. I'm glad for NOR to do that. I don't think the language of NOR should exclude simple, valid conclusions. NOR no doubt would have to have a test or set of tests to establish whether a conclusion is "simple" were SYN to be made less stringent but that surely can be implemented. And Wikipedia is a wiki: if a case comes up that isn't really handled by the current language the language can be modified to cover that case, too.

SYN is ridiculously easy for mindless Wiki-lawyer types to apply. My attitude is that mindless Wiki-lawyer types do not have as their prime goal the maintenance and enhancement of the Quality of Wikipedia. They just want to apply rules, to show their power.

There's an informal exclusion (apparently) for simple math so that if I put in the Global Warming article that a 1 degree increase in average global temperature is under a 0.4% change in average global temperature (because the proper scale to use for such a calculation is the Kelvin scale) that's OK. But that's an informal exclusion. It gets dicier when an editor does any sort of mathematical derivation. Strict interpretation of SYN would exclude that simple statement, unless it were sourced. The math is so simple that few writers on global warming would consider making that explicit statement (it's so obvious.) It may exist somewhere in the global warming literature but in my very limited searching I've never seen it. That a one degree change is under a 0.4% change speaks, I feel, to the question of whether or not human activities can cause such a change. 0.4% isn't huge, even though the scientific predictions of the effects of a one degree change are rather sizable. It's not in any way remarkable to assert that human activities, on a global scale, can cause a change of average temperature of under 0.4%. But that assertion barely makes it under the wire and doubtless there are strict interpreters of rules who would insist that the statement about a one degree change being an under 0.4% change could only appear if it is sourced. Too tight.

I had a section in the Curveball (now renamed) article that said that the language Curveball appeared to have used in describing the now-discredited WMD trailers showed "not a glimmer" of engineering awareness. As he described himself as a chemical engineer that was an internal inconsistency in his claims that revealed him to be a liar. I removed the section. It is, according to WP:NOR, original research. I think the language would strengthen Wikipedia (a tiny bit, of course) but I can accept keeping the language out. But it's perfectly sensible, perfectly logical - and in no way analogous to a weird physics assertion.

As I see it SYN presently excludes all simple logic, as illustrated in the 1st paragraph. I think that's going too far. I do not contemplate ever making an attempt to remove or alter SYN. I do not think the Encyclopedia Britannica (of which I own 5 print editions and one DVD edition) is lumbered by any SYN restriction. The EB is better because of that (and I would think the EB editors never ever considered anytihng like SYN as a standard for that encyclopedia.) SYN is rather ludicrous, overall, in my opinion. But I won't expend any effort to change it.

I have no thoughts or desires that are intended to weaken Wikipedia, as far as I know. Taming SYN would not weaken Wikipedia, in my opinion.

I hope that serves to answer your question.--66.222.28.8 --Minasbeede (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position on this matter. Reading what you wrote above, only strengthens the need for WP:SYN... For example, in regard to your example about "that a 1 degree increase in average global temperature is under a 0.4% change in average global temperature": If this is a significant opinion, i.e. "That a one degree change is under a 0.4% change speaks, I feel, to the question of whether or not human activities can cause such a change. 0.4% isn't huge, even though the scientific predictions of the effects of a one degree change are rather sizable.", then it would be already been mentioned in relevant literature on the subject. Think of the reader... when I come to read an article about a subject I know nothing about, I expect to be presented with information that describes significant opinions on the subject, as well as presented with the names of people or organizations that hold those viewpoints. If I encounter a statement that has never been published, how can I assess the significance of that material? I can't. As for the Curveball example, I do not see what SYN has to do with that. If a person described himself as a chemical engineer, and that is not true as documented by source Y, all we need to say is that the person says he is a chemical engineer, and that source Y says that he is not. Our readers can draw their own conclusions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right: SYN doesn't have much to do with the Curveball example. If there were a source someplace (maybe there is) that says the speech and writings of enginers on engineering topics usually reflect their engineering training then perhaps SYN applies. As it stood what I wrote was logical, reasonable, and pretty well fit the definition of "original research." I removed what I wrote on that basis.

SYN still has the flaws of which I wrote.

Both SYN and PSTS have (to me) the feel of crafted restrictions designed to assist the crafter in suppressing views with which they do not agree. Were there a source that said what I mentioned above about the language of engineers then what I wrote about Curveball would still be excluded as synthesis. That's getting close to over the line (WRT original research) still - but not all synthesis (in my mind) need be excluded.

Thanks for your reply. --Minasbeede (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Martha Stewart

Please note that Martha Stewart insider trading charges is misnamed (they were not insider trading charges), and almost completely unreferenced. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Article redirected to Martha Stewart due to WP:BLP violations. Left a notice in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

I'd be curious to get your opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, on the sourcing issues there and nascent edit war. Seems to be a sudden surge of negative interest on the article.--Samiharris (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WIkinews

Hey Jossi - can I convince you to join us over at Wikinews, review our policies and current procedures, and help us strengthen the site and make it something where our interviews will add to the knowledge Wikipedia is able to draw from? I think a team of interviewers who undertake this work would be great for both the people who do them, and for the project as a whole. Give me ideas, suggestions, etc. Dave --David Shankbone 16:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do, David. Where are these discussions taking place? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The nascent discussions are taking place here: Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#I_want_to_help.3B_how_you_can_help_me_help. You can perhaps skip some of the talk that mentions things we already are doing (such as accrediting reporters and revealing our real names). Right now there are some good suggestions about how to institute "good practices" - start with Jimbo's comments on it. Then an IP wrote a list of items they think are good ideas. I agree with ninety percept of what they said. I personally like--thought I am not saying it is the best idea--some kind of "FA" esque article moniker that is something like "WP approved" as a source for Wikipedia. Mind you, I almost strictly am coming from an interview perspective, but there are some on there who think other OR articles should are also worthy. I am not disagreeing with that assertion, but I only really do interviews with notable people and I find it easier to argue this as a "no brainer". What I like about your perspective if you are warm to this idea, but also cynical. We need that perspective. Register and account over there. By the way, Wikinewsie can sometimes be a gruff, cantankerous lot - don't let it get to you (it almost caused me to walk off the project a few times). Looking forward to your consideration. I think this would be an exciting project not just for Wikinews, but for people on Wikipedia would like the chance to talk to people they care about to improve their articles. So, thanks. --David Shankbone 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already created an account there under same name, and will join these discussions for a while... I have been reading some of the pages there and I like what I see, but I am concerned that it will take too much of my time if I like it too much... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfC Text

Jossi, could you please stop moving the text for my RfC to the Comments section, or at least explain why you are doing so. You didn't with Runiton's RfC. --John Brauns (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is correctly formatted as per my change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the RfC should be the same as in Template:RFCbio_list. Your comments as well as comments by others can go in the section about involved editors. Same as in other RfCs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, this is not your RfC, but an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So why didn't you reformat Rumiton's RfC 'correctly'? BTW, 'Rumiton's RfC' is shorthand for 'the RfC raised by Rumiton'.--John Brauns (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What RfC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was your RfC, but Rumiton's comment was kept within the body of the RfC which explains why I thought it was raised by Rumiton. But my point still applies - why was the background information you and Rumiton supplied kept within the RfC body, and the background information I provided for the RfC I raised has to move to the Comments section? --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The RfC I raised was formatted exactly in the same manner, and as per protocol: (a) The description of the RfC as placed in the template; (b) The sources discussed; (c) Comments by involved editors; and (d) a section for respondents to the RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hola Chicao -Wikinews

Jossi, I started a page to begin discussing principles and requirements for articles on Wikinews to reach so that they may be used as sources on Wikipedia. It's a start. What I don't want anyone to worry about at this stage is whether these things are done now or not. More, I want people just to think about what qualities a Wikinews article should have to make it a credible source on Wikipedia--mind you, this would create a class of articles on Wikinews that would meet this criteria, and unless an article meeting this criteria, it can't be cited. This is what I gleaned from the discussion. You can find what I started here (edit whatever you want. --David Shankbone 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Army article

Hi Jossi. The above article seems to be approaching consensus. There is a question whether an external link to the site "Jesus Army Watch" http://www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk/ should be retained. I am not sure. It does not appear to be an attack site as such, but is an unmoderated site where strong opinions are invited. What think you? Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not appropriate as per WP:EL. See the section "Links to avoid" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks buddy, I've passed that on. Happy Winter Solstice to you. Rumiton (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Please could you provide clarification as to the reason for the removal of this link. Both the talk page and the reason given within the edit relating to it's removal refer to objections to an associated forum at www.voy.com/110322/ - rather than the jesusarmywatch.org.uk web resource itself. If the continued inclusion of the link in not appropriate as you suggest by WP:EL , please could you clarify which part of WP:EL it fails to adhere to, as an amount of confusion has arisen amongst interested editors as to what grounds it has been removed, with other suggestions as to why it was removed already being put forward.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, your posts often seem to me vaguely threatening. This may be no more than an unfortunate choice of words but I suggest you pay more attention to the way you express yourself. Attempts at intimidation, if that is what they appear to be, will get you nowhere fast. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I'm sorry if the way i express myself is coming across to you in that manner. I fail to see how any of my contributions to wikipedia talk pages could be construed as either threatening or intimidatory, including this request for Jossi to comment further. If you could highlight where any of my comments have come across that way on my talk page, I'd happily discuss them further with you. Then we can leave Jossi to comment on the content, rather than the contributor here. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reg warning given by you to me

I dont think that You have gone thru the website. Did u? Did u know that this Sect is a heart of Bhakti Marg? I think you do not have knowledge about BhaktiMarg mentioned in Hindu Religious Book Shreemad Bhagwad Geetaji. I did not spam the article with my links. You shall also notice that we dont sell any of the products on our website. Pl let me know WHY HAVE YOU WRITTEN THAT WE ARE MARKETTING OUR WEBSITE FOR PRODUCTS? Is doing pure devotion to lord , selling a product??? Pl reply. Thanks Dhawal Patel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallabhkankroli (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why have you reverted back all additions of previous link to an official sect website which are 100% related to the articles. give me atleast 1 reason that this link is not related with these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallabhkankroli (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines related to external links. You may also want to seek assistance form editors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject India ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

Jossi,

You asked me to discuss my concerns with New Chronology; here is a far too lengthy account.

I was drawn to look at New Chronology (Fomenko), and related articles, by a recent discussion on the History of Astronomy Discussion List (HASTRO-L) about Fomenko's misuse of astronomy. The Russian astronomer, Michael Gorodetsky, recently (6 Dec 2007) said this about Fomenko:

Fomenko is a respectful scientist in mathematics, though not unequivocally (see the devastating review of one of his books by Almgren). Moreover he is a member of the Russian academy of Science. But in history he is definitely a pseudo-scientist with all characteristic features of pseudoscientific activity. And his activity in history was claimed pseudoscience by the same academy. Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published in Russia more than 60(!) books for wide audience on New Chronology. Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.

Gorodetsky's comments made me sensitive to the spam-like qualities of the article, with links to advertising sites and a large image of Fomenko's books (since removed).

The main advocates of the New Chronology appear to be closely related to each other and to the publisher. They are:

• Poggio bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Poggio Bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• and anonymous editor(s) who edit from NW France using a block of randomly assigned Wanadoo addresses in the range 81.xxx.xxx.xxx to 86.xxx.xxx.xxx). Sometimes addresses in this range have signed their postings Poggio[152] or Franck Ver Stut[153], suggesting a close relationship between the Poggios and Franck Ver Stut).

The advocates of Fomenko's New Chronology have engaged in several actions

• Poggio Bracciolini has added links to advertising videos (described below) to the list of links in this article. [154]

• Various advocates of the New Chronology have engaged in extensive defenses of the ideas of the New Chronology and attacks on its critics, peppered with occasional sarcastic comments on other editors.[155]

• In the past, the advocates of the New Chronology had developed a fork known as New chronology fomenko, apparently with the intention of providing a space for advocacy of the ideas of the New Chronology.

What we are seeing on Wikipedia may be related to the wider use of the internet to advertise Fomenko's books. On YouTube a French user named mithec has posted over 100 short videos that are ads linking Fomenko's new chronology to a wide range of searchable topics, and providing price, web address, and toll free telephone number. A few of them have French titles despite their English language narration. These appear to be connected to the publisher since the name Mithec also appears in the web address of the publisher on the copyright pate of History: Fiction or Science?, http://history.mithec.com; Mithec Distribution Serveces is the name of the US distributor; and Mithec is listed on Amazon.de as the publisher.

If the French editor(s) on Wikipedia are closely related to the French Mithec on YouTube, we have an unacceptable conflict of interest that needs to be monitored carefully. In any event, a caution to the users mentioned above about WikiSpam and Conflict of Interest seems appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I would suggest the following; (a) file a report with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam; and (b) Place a notice at WP:AN/I with the above information. I believe that there are sanctions/restrictions that can be imposed on these editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with CAM

I am having a problem on the CAM page. The lead is turning into long list of criticism of CAM. Criticisms and characterizations are being called 'definitions' and the lead is being written before the body of the text is. The main editor moving the article in this direction , Guettarda, spent some time lecturing JohnGohde on how to write a lead. [156] He claims that the article is a 'medical article' so it should reflect the mainstream view and give little attention to the fringe. NCCAM is not a fringe org, but NCCAM's views are marginalized. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors seem to be making progress there. Make proposals, discuss and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposals are being ignored. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then follow WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I encourage you to consider the commentary of other users at WP:AE regarding the previous lack of action regarding Darwinek. Let's not add this to that tally (I did not know he was getting away with breaking his parole before). Simply completely ignoring the terms of his parole seems to be a very bad idea and threats of action against everyone involved are unfair when, all considered, Darwinek has violated his parole. Charles 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the comments I made there. I am looking not at this for what is "fair" to you, but what is best for the project, and in my opinion, the project would be better served by all of you taking a hard look at the way you come across in your comments in talk, your edits, and your overall behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering we have an administrator on parole who has repeatedly violated his parole... Thank you? Charles 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research

You wrote at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Original_research: "You may want to read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position"
Thanks. I feel that that policy is either frequently misunderstood or (more likely) is incorrect, as written.
In any article which mentions topic X, quoting reliable sources about topic X is in my opinion wholly appropriate, and cannot be considered to be "original research" by the natural meaning of that expression.
People are advancing the position that Wikipedia should never cite sources which are not relevant to the main topic of an article. This strikes be as wholly unworkable and inappropriate.
Instead, we should have a policy similar to our definition of the appropriate style of internal linking within Wikipedia - "overlinking" and related policies. IMHO, the policy should say that if an article mentions "X", it is appropriate (and indeed strongly desirable) to cite a reliable source on X. If there are various divergent views about X it is appropriate (and indeed strongly desirable) to cite sources representing these various views. The policy should say something along the lines of "3 sources supporting a given position is plenty - more than that is overdoing it."
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is an established policy. If you have concerns with the wording of the policy, bring up your arguments at the policy's talk page: WT:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been hookwinked

The glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms has a fifth column that periodically disrupts the page and tries to get it eliminated. This is a single individual who routinely inserts her unsourced POV and then complains about POV! Please, look at the history of this single individual's disruptions before backing her in the destruction of months of work by a number of individuals.Tim (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is a POV and OR minefield. It needs to be deleted, or massively edited for compliance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi -- if you keep up this vandalism I'll nominate it for an AfD myself for complete irrelevance. Stop the vandalism now. Revert it now. Enter your concerns for discussion with the other editors. That's the way of civil discourse. Are you a real person or a sockpuppet of Lisa's?Tim (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, honestly, you have a lot of gall to ask me to play nice after committing vandalism by colusion under the color of being "an administrator." As soon as I research how to report you, I will. Such colusion is the definition of "meat puppet." Had you "played nice" and discussed this on the talk page for a consensus, there would have been no colusion or vandalism.Tim (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Play nice: no more use of "collusion" or "vandalism", or "meatpuppet" in your edit summaries. In wikipedia, we Assume good faith. If you want to "report" me, you can do so at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed good faith on Lisa's part for a long time. Now I know better.Tim (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an unambiguous result for the previous AfD: "Fix the POV and NOR violations". You did nothing about it, instead, you reverted a good faith attempt to respond to the AfD results, calling it vandalism. So play nice or not play at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We worked for weeks to eliminate those, and Lisa insisted on deleting sourced material and replacing with her POV. Then she drags you into eliminate everything that was EXACTLY on her agenda. If you aren't Lisa, I don't know who you are. Which is worse -- being called a meat puppet or being the victim of one? I'd MUCH prefer the former. This vandalism wasn't good faith. It was simply vandalism.Tim (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am Jossi, a Wikipedia editor, that stumbled upon this article by sheer chance, and immediately saw its problems, and attempted to fix them based on the Afd results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was my attempt, which you deleted. Where is your attempt to fix the problems highlighted in the AFd? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We COLLABORATIVELY deleted the neutral column per AfD concerns, and COLLABORATIVELY added citations, and corrections based on those citations, to the cells. I had to step away for a while because the last AfD was too distracting from the work I'm doing on a galley proof to my book, but the collaboration continued right well on it's own, with Lisa spreading gasoline everywhere but no one stumbling in with a match. If you innocently stumbled in with that match, fine. But (let's call it good faith) efforts did not follow any principle of discussion or consensus. We were managing one troublemaker on our own and carefully adding citations even though she would remove them and replace them with blanket unsourced universal claims. Sometimes we'd let her have her way for a while in a cell so that we could continue improving twenty others, but we had no other way of managing her because no one is able to ban a repeated vandal. And then, poof, you came and months of citations were eliminated at the drop of a hat. Just ask yourself how legitimate it is for a person to be both actively making changes to a page and actively trying to destroy it at the same time? It's like kicking an umpire and saying, "See, baseball is a violent game!"Tim (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but you ought to attempt to see mine as well. You speak of "collaboration" but you polarize the discussion along lines of "we" and "her". You speak of collaboration, but no attempts to fix the problems highlighted in the AFD... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, just yesterday I defended Lisa's point in a difference of her experience versus cited references from Bikini. Bikini was following correct methodology, but still coming to a conclusion that all of the Jewish editors (myself, Slrub, and Lisa -- yes, Lisa) knew to be obscure at best. Bikini had no way of knowing. The methodology was correct. So, we were discussing the best way to resolve the problem when correct methodology somehow finds the wrong information. It happens. However, Lisa's methodology, giving universalistic opinion statements with no sources, was not the way to handle it. I was on the verge of suggesting the whole symbology additions to be out of scope on a terminology table. That would have solved the problem. What's Lisa's solution? Bear in mind that I agreed with her opinion on that cell -- her solution was to hijack the page. I'm sorry, but unsourced opinion statements and then hijacking (and dragging you along) is not the way to go about it. Us versus her? Well, when the subject is collaboration versus hijacking, yes. But the iniciting event was us (Lisa, Slrub, and myself) versus Bikini. The only clear problem highlighted in that AfD was Lisa, and there is no way to solve that. The only way to manage is to manage quietly and hope no well meaning but highly energetic editor doesn't stumble into the room and light a match to see what's going on. Lisa's conclusion was correct, but not her methodology. Bikini's methodology was correct, but not her conclusion. Wikipedia favors methodology, and hijacking ain't it.Tim (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Bikinibomb, on the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms talk page, has suggested that you are my sockpuppet. Considering that I'm fairly new here, and you're an admin, this seems unlikely to me, but I'm not sure how to go about proving it.

Also, I tried changing the page to a list, as you directed. Bikinibomb reverted it back to a table, and to a glossary. Is there anything you can do to prevent him from doing this? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're not my sockpuppet? Whew, that's a relief. Also, when the page is changed to a list, can we please have it be "List of Christian and Jewish terms", and not "List of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms"? The only reason they included "Messianic" (other than the personal obsession Bikinibomb seems to have with them) is that in the context of a grid, they could include them. Since that doesn't make any sense in the context of a list, the shorter name seems more appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That page, or series of pages, needs protection. The warring over where the article is located, what it contains, blah blah needs to take a pause for a bit until people can figure out what shape it should be in. Cross-purposes editing is just going to get everyone blocked. Avruchtalk 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch: There is an obvious problem with that article, as per consensus in the AfD. If there is no hope for editors responding to what the AfD called for, I will place back in AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there are ways to be a sockpuppet without literally being one. So if your big complaint is OR, when are you going to admonish Lisa for replacing my sourced statements from aish.com and torah.org, with her own OR that figs have no symbolism at all in Judaism, which is how all this started? If you are going to nose around in there you need to really treat the problem thoroughly. Dontcha think? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page. If you want to engage civilly, please do so. Otherwise your comments will be excised from my talk page. As for the essence of the problem, I do no give a hoot how many sources you add to an article: An article can violate NPOV and OR having each and every sentence sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, though we haven't communicated in a while, I'm very disappointed to hear that you've become a puppet for somebody named Lisa, since I had hoped that you'd be my puppet instead. Please let me know if you change your mind. Meanwhile, I wish you/Lisa a happy new year! Cheers, HG | Talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

rofl !!!≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Heh. Jossi, do you think you might be willing to reintroduce the AfD? They're clearly using this page as a playground for interfaith dialog, and slanting the content for that purpose. And... well, if you're not my puppet, do you know where I can get one? I've always wanted one. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with the article itself, as evidence by the reason for the last AfD, is that some people are freaked out to see Judaism and Messianic Judaism sitting side by side. Other than that it has the same problems most every article has on Wikipedia. It's expected that some will censor and abuse Wikipedia to enforce religious POVs and use every trick in the book to do it. Just don't expect civility from everyone else when it happens and is condoned and supported. You reap what you sow, as they say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi! You're a sockpuppet?? Man! And here I thought you were a Shoepuppet!!. What a disappointing start for the new year...luckily I have my new digital watercolor to keep my spirits up... :D Dreadstar † 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

that glossary

Is your objection principly to the table format comparing views? I tried to follow the AfD discussion but found it hard to follow the threads. What is your basic view_ Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If we compare views in a manner that has not been compared in published sources, we will be engaging in OR. If the comparison is a comparison made by Messianic Jews, then frame it that way to maintain NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I underfstand you correctly, that you had no problem when it was simply a glossary of alphabetized terms? Since then I have added terms. My question is, would reverting to an earlier version be a good thing to do? If so, I will do so - and add the terms I added. But if you and others would still take strong objection, it would be a waste of my time. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I see no problem with a glossary. My objection is about a comparison which is OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious. In Christianity and Judaism do you object to "By contrast, Christianity is an explicitly evangelical religion." in comparison to Jewish proselytizing? If there are no sourced statements specifically making that comparison, is it OR and should we delete it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So obviously I stepped in shit without realizing it. Just did an overhaul. Please fix it up and I will support your improvements, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This glossary is the most violent violation of NPOV I've seen in a long time. Make two pages or a table, but for goodness sake don't mix and match Judaism and Christian so that people can't tell who's saying what. "Christian" means "Gentile" to a Jew. It doesn't mean "a believer in Jesus." Although I agree that ultimately the Christian self definition is correct by all logical standards, that definition cannot stand on a page that lists Christian and Jewish terms together. "Christian" is a Jewish term meaning "Gentile." Separate the two religions, or delete the page altogether.Tim (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian does not mean "Gentile" to a Jew. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at article's talk, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy 2008

Same to you and yours, Jossi! Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What a beautiful image..! Thank you! And a happy, joyous New Year to you too! Dreadstar † 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I painted it a few years back... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You got a great talent there! It's perfect, beautiful water flower floating on a gorgeous blue, dappled pond...and in water color too? Very nice, indeed. Dreadstar † 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not watercolor... Digital paint.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Even better! I thought you might have photoshopped in the text over a pic of the painting...even the signature look like it was done by hand... Dreadstar † 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the original, I did photoshopped the greeting over it.:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it ;) Happy new year to you as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you and yours! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi, and all the best for the New Year to you, too. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please move the page to List (or Glossary) of Christian and Jewish terms

Jossi, the AfD is over, but the page still needs to have its name changed. It was never intended to be a MJ page. Tim only named it that frivolously. See this diff, and Tim's comment: "moved Glossary of Lisa's terms to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms over redirect: It's enough. In this case, Messianic Judaism = Lisa." Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jossi

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on article

I was recently mentioned in an on-line article off-wiki.

This is my response

You may also want to read the request for advice I placed at the Village Pump a few weeks ago here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 5#Request for support and advice you ask for advice. My advice is to stop editing any article or policy that is problematic for Wikipedia's reputation or yours. People have already told you which pages those are. Trust their judgement over yours on the issue. The entire point of COI is that the person who has one doesn't see it and therefore needs to avoid editing certain things because they are dead sure they are being neutral when in fact they are not. Don't edit subjects close to you. You thought you were immune from being human? Nope, just like the rest of us, when you open your eyes you see the world from your point of view. You also asked for support. Well, know that I'm glad when I see you involved on a page because I find your contributions to usually be accurate, helpful, balanced, and fair. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I haven't tried to figure out what this latest episode is about. But you have my support and appreciation for the hard and earnest work you've been doing on Wikipedia. If only there was more attention to NPA out there.... Be well and of good cheer. Feel free to contact me by Talk or email. Take care of yourself, as you have by asking for support, b'hatzlakhah, HG | Talk 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Cla68 has a conflict of interest here, as he has been in contact with Metz before, but chose to add Metz's allegations to the "criticism of Wikipedia" article; I do not think that any criticism should be added unless it has been identified as a notable criticism by sources independent of the originating publication. But then, Cla68 did not see a conflict in promoting the linking of an interview with him to that article, accusing those who pointed out factual errors in the interview of having a conflict in not wanting it there, so perhaps he's the one whose understanding of COI is off-base. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, it is clear that Jossi has a COI regarding some things. Whether Cla68 has a COI regarding a certain newspaper or one of its reporters is another matter. And with regard to a COI on the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article; we ALL have a COI there! WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So is my argeement that there is a COI off-base? I think not. Stop trying to find excuses, folks: If Jossi were KDBuffalo, we'd all be at his throat.

Anyway, if you'll notice, I don't edit the IRS article because in COI cases, perception is 9 points of the "law". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article tries to read into a few facts a whole series of unverified conclusions. I have had a number of occasions to observe Jossi's work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I have always admired his contributions, and his willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there Jossi, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Me das lastima ver lo que le esta pasando con Maharaji. Si le puedo ayudar, solo decirmelo. Pues Maharaji no es uno de los malos y las cosas que sele acusan tampoco son buenas. Vaya pues, SqueakBox 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gracias, SqueakBox. Te agradezco tus palabras. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

This too shall pass. Hang in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about The Register.

I think the article by The Register is largely my fault.

I don't know anything about you or Prem Rawat, and told Cade nothing about that.

However, this all seems to have begun because I e-mailed The Register about the hoax, Brahmanical See, which asserted that Hinduism is organized like Catholicism (basically comparing the Maharaj to the Pope). I thought it would be good for such criticism of Wikipedia to be published because it seems to encourage Wikipedia to improve.

I spoke with Cade over the phone for a while about it. Today, he sent me a link to the article in question via e-mail and I was surprised to see that it had nothing to do with Brahmanical See, but appeared to just be conspiracy theorism about you.

Now, even though my contact with Mr. Metz had nothing to do with you, it seems true that he would've never been creating these conspiracy theories if I had never e-mailed him to begin with.

I hope nobody bothers you about this.

My suggestion: If you face a persistent amount of harassment, you may be able to seek a legal injunction against The Register or Mr. Metz for harassment, libel, or defamation of character.

For now, I'm somewhat paranoid because he has my real name and contact info. I'm not an admin, but since I'm supporting you here, god knows there's a good chance I will end up in one of his future conspiracy theories. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel the Register article is bad editorial, and shows a profound lack of knowledge in how Wikipedia actually works, so hopefully it won't be taken as reliable. I think what Zenwhat said above when he called it "conspiracy theorism" hits the nail on the head. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read the Register article carefully and I think it's well written. The major point it makes - that a few well placed Wikipedians wield inordinate influence - is indeed true. The issue is not if there is a "cult" article being whitewashed, rather it's about the fact that wiki leaders claim tthe wiki is egalitarian, but it's really not. The Reggister likes to tweak hypocrites and in the Wiki, they have found what they feel is a fair target. Wringly or rightly, the Reg is fixated on spotlighted wiki-misteps. We should take a step back and try to truly understand why they are this way. Their views about wiki are a mirror of the wiki. If we don;t like what we see, perhaps we should improve? 66.96.211.167 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. This is because after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of edits, editors get reputations. When editors continually do good work, continually show good judgment, continually show dedication to the aims of this project, naturally their word means more to those who know that person than for some random person who comes along. Wikipedia is egalitarian in that anyone can contribute and has the right to build a reputation that makes their words listened to. The idea of Wikipedia is not that everyone who contributes is equal and anyone who comes along is immediately welcomed with open arms if they engage in behavior that is questionable. That's not "news" to anyone except those who thought that erroneously to begin with. --David Shankbone 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you're right. That is true. However, based on Jossi's response, I think it's reasonable.

Also, it turns out my apology is totally unnecessary. I e-mailed Metz and he said he's been working on this story for 2 months. Wow. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And he got paid for writing it (presumably). Double wow. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to community feedback, and thank you all for your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=189994816 --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, and see no reason to destroy the hard work of many editors over a period of more than a year. You are most welcome to come and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "You deleted sources, hundreds of copyedits, new material, and the hard work of many editors, including non-involved editors." [157] - The article is better sourced, better NPOV, and restores quite some "destroyed" edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, sorry Francis. You cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand thousands of edits to a version you created more than 14 months ago. That is not the way that Wikipedia works, and you know that better than me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing help. This is my first article. Someone wants to delete it due to neologism/essay/original research. I don't really understand. Do you have any advice for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardens for Living (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to fan the flames

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190068136&oldid=190067433 - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking that the material be incorporated into the article. That template exist for a reason, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The COI policy used to be far clearer than it is now about the possibilities for embarrassing yourself and what you care about. Most people aren't going to read and evaluate each of your edits to see if it is valid. Most people will hear you have an admitted COI and yet refuse to stop influencing and editing the articles you have a COI on. They will claim wikipedia has a double standard. You are not taking appearances into account. You are not following the COI guideline for what is preferred - which is don't edit subjects you are close to. Please stop bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Innocent behavior that has the appearance of criminal behavior can result in going to jail. Appearance is important. Don't make wikipedia appear to not care about admin COI. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. Perceptions count, no doubt. But that does not mean that we should allow these to drive our project.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between actual bias and apprehended bias. By editing the articles about your guru, and COI policies, it seems that you conduct yourself in such a way that fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that you might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues. This is not to say that you display any bias at all, but rather, it could be apprehended that you do. In courts, Judges are presumed to be able to judge all issues equally on their merits, and are presumed to be above prejudice in all matters. Never-the-less, where the potential for apprehended bias occurs, they will recuse themselves from cases, or in extreme cases, a higher court will overturn their decisions. This seems like as good advice as any in this situation. It is not that you have necessarily displayed bias towards your guru, it is that an apprehended bias exists, and perhaps recusal is called for. FiveVryl (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. With the Islam image question, we have responded by creating a page that tells people how to make it so they do not see images. I think that's about the best we can do with that. But it is fully in accord with our COI guideline for you to refrain from editing articles that you are close to. Since you are an admin, it would look good if you also refrained from influencing content; but I can see where not being allowed to express an opinion on the talk page could be too much like letting others run our show. But, gee whiz ... can't you back off for a month on the articles and the talk pages ... not to be able to do that makes it look like this is some sort of ... ummm ... uhhh ... job. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi. I'm sorry you've ended up in the soup on this one; the Register is rarely known to give a subject an even break. Still, I agree with WAS 4.250 here. This is not a question of letting perception drive our project. One of our basic theories is that there are plenty of unbiased people available to work on articles, so that credentialed experts and active participants are not vital for good results. As admins, we are expected to hold ourselves to the highest of standards, and I ask you to do that here by leaving alone the articles where you have a strong personal interest. By my count, you've made over 4,400 edits to pages related to your guru/employer. Let's call that enough for now. William Pietri (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

possibilities

so, i read the article in the register, and i can see it's quite biased against you. however, i think morally, you and others should avoid editing articles that relate to you directly. Religion is a heavy topic, and it brings bias with it; people believe in their religion, and therefore they defend it. i don't think you're doing much wrong, however, i do think that a criticism section should be included. i can see no reason for a lack of inclusion. as the register article itself shows - there's some bias against rawat. that's not my point, however. i'd like you and others to refrain from editing articles that affect you as such, as the bias would cause a conflict of interest for any person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.35.123 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your artwork yesterday.

I like it a lot. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but stumbling back upon your user page and examining it closely was a very pleasent experience indeed. Thanks for sharing it with the community. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx

I think you've taken a step I know must not have been easy.

Anyway, I'm coming here because someone (named Sylviecyn) is apparently very upset about something here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Declaration of intent. I don't know what it is all about, and the remark doesn't seem really suitable for an article talk page. Is there a way to come to a better understanding with this person? If you think I can help, just give me a word, but I'm about to stop for today. It's getting late this side of the ocean. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the remark is not suitable for talk page, it can be moved to my talk page or that person's, although I have no interest in engaging with that person for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Can we do anything about this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

archived

That was bold, and, I think, probably the right thing to do. Thanks. Hesperian 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a notice in that user's talk page. Rather than exacerbate the situation, lending a hand in these disputes may be the better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Link

I obtained the L.A Times articles through ProQuest. If you like I can send you PDF files. If you hav access to ProQuest then you can also obtain them directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate the PDF, I will email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of:

"Guru's Heliport Bid Backed as Fire Aid" ROBERT W STEWART, Los Angeles Times; Mar 25, 1982; pg. WS1

It's from the "ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)" special collection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The Proquest access I have did not bring that article in my search. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious what this is...

"**Comment to closing admin - Maelefique (talk · contribs) second posting to Wikipedia was to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" ... Are you suggesting that I've only made one other contribution other than the comments/edit suggestions to this article? I thought you'd be able to tell, but that's not correct. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? And what would the relevance of that comment be? Do I need to cite published academic articles from elsewhere to be taken seriously or something? Point you to other WP articles? I'm just not clear on what your point is, if you could please explain. thanks.<insert little happy face here> :) Maelefique (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See your contributions list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have of course seen that, and after looking it over again very carefully, I still did not find answers to the questions I asked you. So if you could, again, just let me know what is the relevance, or point, of that comment you made, to the PR article? Your assertion would seem to be that I've never edited an article here before (again, wrong), and that fact should somehow factor into the weight of my postings or something? Clearly that would be terribly wrong, so I'm hoping there is some other answer. So I would think, at the very least you could explain the comment or retract it. This is the second time I've asked a question and you've seemed to waste my time with an "answer" that does not deal with the question. I try not to do that to you, by asking straight-forward questions, could you try not to do that to me, by simply answering my questions? And if you could, please refrain from pointing me to more links that do not answer the question, (although I do appreciate that this time, the large section of irrelevant text was at least in english, my portuguese is a little rusty so last time it took considerably longer to determine you weren't being helpful) if you could just let me know what you're saying, that would be great. Thanks again for your time. Maelefique (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In deletion discussions, it is customary to alert the closing admin about new accounts. If you have another account, you could have used it. If you have more than one account, you may want to read voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts. As for your participation in th PR article, that is most welcome. But note that as I and others have no way to know that you are editing under an alternate account, and your edit history shows a first edit on Feb 9, 2008, don't be surprised if editors provide links to appropriate guidelines and policies when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, ok, I followed everything but the part about the "closing admin", how do I determine who that is for any particular article? In the case of the PR article, is that you? I am fully aware of the voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts, thanks for mentioning them though. I used this account specifically only for this article because I felt this article deserved to have my opinion, not cluttered by other edits in other places, which have nothing to do with anything whatsoever in the fields of politics or religion. I have not, nor do I have any intention to play any kind of *puppet games with this, or any other, article. Have I violated some appropriate guidelines or policies that I'm unaware of? Thanks for clearing the rest of that comment up for me. Maelefique (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article

Hi Jossi. Hope you are well. As someone who has some familiarity with the article, although I know you haven't been involved with it for a good while, I was hoping you might be able to stop by and have a look at the current discussion on the external links wording in the article. I am in conflict with two other editors - I think we all have POVs about the wording. Hence, I am trying to bring in indepedent editors/admin to give their comments. Your thoughts on the wording, but also the websites that are being linked to (and whether they are appropriate or not) would be of great value. Regards Appledell (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have still content disputes, why don't you pursue dispute resolution? There are many willing editors that I'm sure will be happy to assist editors there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of Discussion

The page is out of hand ... I'm trying to bring some order. And it's mostly the fault of your boy momento who keeps adding new threads to things we are already discussing. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. It makes it really difficult to follow. You ca propose a refactoring of the page there, but get agreement first. See Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

how does putting all the threads about the photo next to each other make it "really hard to follow"? Same with the lede, and hunts article, and putting all complaints about you under the same heading? What's wrong with that. The page is out of control.

Just don't. Refactoring pages as you are doing is very confusing as it breaks the chronology of posts. Again, if you want to propose doing this, please ask in talk page first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

Hi Jossi, thanks for the welcome. I have a user ID, and the IP edits on the talk page were mine. Since I am currently dealing with similar stuff in another article I chickened out and posted as an IP. I'll stick my head out next time. -- Jayen466 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure you have plenty on your plate right now, I'd be grateful if you could look in on the discussion at Talk:Osho#Falsification_of_sources when you have a mo. Cheers, Jayen466 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost article

I was the last to edit the article, but as you can see by this diff of my two edits, the wording that you question isn't mine. Moreover, you omitted the beginning of the sentence: It has been suggested; so even the author of the article isn't exactly labeling you as anything. Those four words are (arguably) a bit of weasel-wording, but no reader of the article chose to edit them out, for what that's worth.

Also, as a point of information, though I often indulge myself in copyediting of Signpost articles, I'm not in any way associated with that publication (to the extent that any editor can be said to be associated with it). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!

Hi Jossi,

I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for fulfilling my WP:RFPP request. I know admins are the first to get dumped on when something goes wrong and the last to be thanked when something goes right, but I just wanted to let you know I was heartened to see that you're still fighting the good fight, especially after everything that's happened recently.

Anyways, happy wikiing! --jonny-mt 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help to lock Plácido Domingo’s article again

Hi Jossi, The article has been locked 2 consecutive times from last year due to heavy vandalism by anonymous users. Once the lock has been lifting off, they start vandalising again. The final locking expires on 14 January and now vandalism start again. Please look at the history page. We need your help to lock the article again as soon as possible. The vandalism is going on as I am writing this. Hopefully you could lock it longer than usual period. I send this message to Iridescent too. - Jay (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look. Next time, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see enough activity to warrant protection at this time. If this persists, drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been vandalised 6 times from 13 Feb changing the same thing - his year of birth. Me and Voceditenore have to "guard" the article for the past 3 days. 4 of the "activities" happenned today and 2 of them only in less than 10 minutes ago. Look at Request for protection page]. It has been requested early today- Jay (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Jay (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly

Any further back and forth not strictly relevant should be done on our own talkpages. I am serious about my last comment, and I apologise if I was a little shirty earlier. The reason was that I don't appreciate accusations of bias and I did not expect one when editing out of the nationalist sinkholes where I usually, to my sadness, am found. --Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am really trying to understand if such a mention is worthy of inclusion or not. No bad feelings, and I will make efforts not to present my opinions as accusations of bias in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I respect your decision on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy but think you should reconsider. With the republication this is a hot topic in the news (I had submitted to the talk page an article on Danish diplomats who canceled a trip to Iran due to the controversy, but which appears not to have received mention yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi article

Thanks for taking care of Yaoi. An indefinite block was a bit harsh though, in my opinion - after all, that person might grow up, mature, and calm down after only a few days of being blocked, then edit positively with that account.

For future reference, how do I report abusive people to an admin? Casull (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a vandalims only account, probably same as previous anons that got warned. To report disruption, you can do so at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sees blanking vandalism) Ouch, somebody hates you. Same IP as that one fangirl you banned, I take it? Casull (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably should just block 'em.

Looks like another btard sweep like the day before... HalfShadow (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing my userpage. It's nice to know someone is keeping an eye out for me. RC-0722 communicator/kills 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping revert the anon IP

he's keeping you and ClueBot busy. As an FYI, I started a thread yesterday. Travellingcari (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User commons/Administrator

A tag has been placed on Template:User commons/Administrator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Britches talk page

I am trying to reason out a solution for the deletion, and substituted re-direct, of the "UC Riverside ALF Raid" page that you were editing yesterday. I think my reasons are clear. The Britches page has a significant POV issue, in that its principal content is based on events from non-third-party sources. I created the "UC Riverside ALF Raid" page to provide a page that reflected reliable third party reporting on the same events. Talk:Britches_(monkey) --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Dear, I am the Ph.d scholar in south asian studies. Make changes with the reference to the proper source. But the user " Pahari Sahib " always add illegal changes, change original history.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.150.138 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3O

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about 3O: after giving an opinion, just remove the listing from the list and mark in the edit summary box that you did so. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please report at WP:ANI/3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have really placed such a message, but it was removed! Please undo the fourth revert which violates the 3RR. Thank you in advance. Eliko (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was removed is because the administrator that looked into it, did not see the need to intervene. Also note that admins will not revert to a preferred version based on a 3RR report. See WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Waterboarding

"United Nation's" (as you just added to the Waterboarding article should probably be changed to "United Nations," as "Nation's" would imply that there is only one nation. Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe corrected. It now reads: The United Nations' Report..." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question About Warnings

Re: Prem Rawat article and PatW -- Is it appropriate (or even allowed) for me to give him a warning on his User Talk page, or is that reserved for Admins (or just socially left to more experienced users)? Would it be useful? I would always prefer that troublesome users like him and Momento calm down and keep their voicees in the mix, but he is clearly trying to provoke you and it's getting pretty annoying. I would have sent you email but couldn't find a link. Thx. Msalt (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW has been already warned many times... but you can always try again, and coming from a fresh perspective, you may find a more successful way to make him understand. Any editor can assist another editor, that is not reserved to admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I am under no delusion that I have the magic words that will get through to him. But who knows, it could happen, and it doesn't cost me any money to try. Even if not, I think there is value in making the community consensus clear from as many different voices as possible, as well as value in naming my own truth rather than sitting quietly. Msalt (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair Reversion

Dear sir, I recently removed a great deal of the Popular Culture section from the Dodo page, on the basis that much of it was utterly and totally irrelevant. I received a note from you (or a bot belonging to you) telling me not to make nonconstructive edits, and one from the fellow who reverted it telling me not to add poorly worded sentences. I find this a tad bit baffling. If Wikipedia users want to keep its pages cluttered with irrelevant trivia, well, so be it--but it has a serious impact on Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Thank you. User:134.173.59.5 —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many articles include trivia sections. Rather that delete these sections outright, you may want to find good sources for these, or improve the article by adding new content or improving existing content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits re. GOOOH

Jossi, I'm curious as to why you would undermine the credibility of my post by calling out that I'm an SPA without actually responding to the content IN the post. Yes, I post fairly infrequently to Wikipedia and thus far only on topics of interest to me, but that in no way should diminish the thought content in my edits/comments. Please remember that:

"The term (SPA) should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment....New users acting in good-faith will often begin to edit topics in which they have an interest. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines."

I feel that I have been unfairly labeled by you without the courtesy of you responding to my reasoning. My hope is that you would evaluate my contributions on their own merit, and not just name call. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.146.249 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice to alert closing admins to the fact that some editors commenting on AfDs have just but a few edits, in partiular if those few edits are on the same subject of the AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

-- I have no issues with you calling out that I appear to be an SPA - the issue is that you did not likewise respond to the points I was making. What is more relevant - the content of my contributions, or how many contributions I've made thus far? No bad blood here, I'd just like the courtesy of a response to the points in my vote. Anything otherwise seems cliquish to me. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Master Bayshun1

I see you only blocked them for 31 hours, you might like to extend this to indefinite. A few minutes after your block they created account User:Master Bayshun2 and carried on vandalising, that account has now been indef blocked. Thanks for your time, Polly (Parrot) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should have blocked indef.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

I'd certainly endorse, and would join in requesting, 1RR on Prem Rawat. NPA and talk page disruption are too objective to be practical, in my opinion. Those issues are best handled directly as they come up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's work on the wording and make a proposal at WP:AN. Here is a start:

Editors are placed in WP:1RR probation on Prem Rawat and other reasonably related pages for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per xxxx) or engaging in disruptive behavior, may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, starting at 48 hours and escalating up to a month. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. All resulting blocks shall be logged at Talk:Prem Rawat/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. 1RR violations and other disruptions to be reported at Talk:Prem Rawat/Article probation#Violations reports

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR per day, per 48 hrs, per week? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't endorse vague language like "disruptions". I think the block duration should be left up to the blocking admin. I don't see any reason for a special log. I'd assumed the "1RR" meant one revert per day, but one per week is OK with me. Let's keep this simple. Unless there's precedenet for those extra steps we can just use the regular mechanisms. I suggest something more like:

Editors are placed in WP:1RR probation on Prem Rawat and articles in category:Prem Rawat for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per week), may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:3RRN

As for the notification, if editors are allowed on "free" revert before being warned it's more like 2RR. We can notify the most frequent editors pre-emptively. I suggest we aim to have this in place when the page protection expires. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Looks good. Do you want an extra pair of eyes on this proposal? If you don't, you can post a WP:AN with both our names as endorsers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse it. Once posted on AN others may have input on how to implement it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll post it this evening - I'll be away from the keyboard most of the day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Drop me a line, I will also be off-wiki for most of the day. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal. (I wrote this earlier, but I must have closed the tab without hitting the 'save' button so I've recreated it now.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WQA

I was about to catch your mixup at the WQA, but you got it yourself (I was going to make the exact same mistake until I thought "wait, how was he blocked tomorrow?"). I was also going to comment though that at the WQA, incidents are not manually archived with archive top/bottom unless they need it (e.g. disruptive conversation that just doesn't stop, frivolous/attack complaints, etc.). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for lending a hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reposting of Previously Deleted Sahaj Marg Page

Dear Jossi,

I hope you are doing well. A "new" user has reposted the twice-previous deleted Sahaj Marg page -- full of unverifiable, unreliable sources and even blogs at the end. Please see this.

Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. I've posted a speedy delete and notices on the "new" user's talk page.

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per WP:SPEEDY G4. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- appreciate the speedy response. Renee (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Move.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. See here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Need more specifics on Hillary Rodham Clinton flagging

Jossi, please see my request on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton for more details and specific instances that prompted your flagging. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied in article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Read with interest and thanks for the time to give detailed examples. Needless to say, I have follow-up questions for you there. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have that page on my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Sant Mat movements‎

hi jossi. I just rev. your restoring some statements from the article . The reason being the statments are highly in-flammatory in character. They are totally contrary to history. You can read some history books on India and you will know it. thanks .Ajjay (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The material seemed to be well sourced, Let's discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an understanding now. i want to remove the discussed para from talk page. it is glaring and serves no purpose, other than highlighting what was deleted. ThanksAjjay (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IU

Because you were labeled by this person, please see this. Renee (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden - protection

Hello... with regards to this article, would you object if I put on semi-protection? I understand your concerns regarding admins being the only ones who can edit it, but I'm not sure throwing it wide open is the best solution. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is anon vandalism or disruption, feel free to sprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; hopefully, it won't be necessary. Thanks for the quick response. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

You protected the wrong version. The protected version as the propaganda. GreenJoe 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of a specific version, but (in this case) a measure to curb edit warring. See also Wikipedia:Protection policy and The Wrong Version. Michael Slone (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please use the talk page

On waterboarding rather than just mindlessly reverting. Did you even see what I did or read the categories or talk page? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

unlock the Canadian Federation of Students Page

Jossi- Can you unlock that page so I can add some more sections? I would like to add a campaigns section to add more information. GreenJoe has so far been unwilling and/or unable to engage in any discussion at all in order to resolve this. If you see in the comments section I have written at length to justify my changes to make this a balanced and fair wikipage. So far GreenJoe seems interested in the status quo which, if you recall, is a wiki page with a B-grade in reliable and complete information. None of his reverts provided any real discussion, it seems he is there to guard what is on the CFS page now which is full of unreliable/broken sources, and partisan commentary.

Cheers,

Nocandu1976 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of 66.64.187.72 (talk · contribs)

Thank you!!!!!!! SWik78 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuleulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you blocked this user on the 28th Feb for uploading copyrighted images, I'd thought you'd like to know he's uploaded a whole load more all under false GNU licences. Polly (Parrot) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Googoosh article and 3RR

I don't think I am edit-warring, Jossi, and I think my 3RR report is valid, for the following reasons:

1. This is the English-language wikipedia. Therefore, English spellings are primary, as per WP:MOS. It isn't as if anyone was trying to scrub any reference to the farsi language spelling of the article subject's name.

2. As per WP:NOT, we don't include lists of past concert dates, and we don't include lists of future concert dates as per both WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL.

While not bad in and of itself, a single-purpose account used to edit-war is always suspect. That the user violated 3RR, especially after being warned as to the consequences of it, removes any protection they might have had for being new. The user was advised, and violated 3RR anyway. This also suggests that the user's "common ground" is not within the policies of Wikipedia. I would ask that you actually LOOK at the 3RR report, as there is in fact a violation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will take a second look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, that there is an edit war. If the user persists in reverting, and your assessment that what he is reverting to is in contradiction with established guidelines, and you cannot convince him of this, then try first a third opinion. That is a good first step. If the third opinion supports your interpretation of guidelines, he may re-consider. If he does not, then you can file a notice at WP:AN/I were it will be looked at in the context of disruptive editing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think you are cutting the user entirely too much slack, i guess I would want that same slack should something similar happen to me. Nishkid suggests that the protection time will get the user to slow down and listen to reason. Your suggestions at averting the problem are good, and I will pursue them. I would appreciate if you could keep your hand in for a little while, to help the user along. (S)he clearly isn't listening to me telling him/her what the rules are. Thanks for taking a second look. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom‎ page

Thanks for your comments on the article's talk page. I agree with you and would argue that you should reinstate protection now rather than wait. We seem to have a genuinely "deaf" (sorry, no slur intended to the non-hearing) editor hell-bent on POV pushing against just about every other editor, and whom we suspect of sockpuppeting, COI conflicts, and other shady practices. This person seems to be on his/her own personal jihad. Just my two cents, but I'd suggest putting protected status on now. Thanks. Arjuna (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning to block me editing

Do you want to explain why you have warned me from vandalising pages? I've never visited the Sikhism article and my edits on the Ishaa Koppikar article are perfectly valid. You've confused me.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.176.249 (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a short lock to Demographics of the United States?

It seems pretty clear by the IPs that this is one guy skipping addresses. Maybe semi it for an hour otr two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs)

Sprotected for a 12 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable block?

This is in reference to the anon IP: 67.188.208.203. I have been following and his edits were not vandalism by any means. He was restoring the page to the consensus agreed upon by established editors through discussions on the talk page. I show this editor joined those discussions, and his edits were good in keeping with consensus. Can you explain why you blocked him/her? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ciao Giovanni. See WP:3RR report. He can always ask for an unblock and get another admin to assess its validity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ciao. Ah I did not see the 3RR issue. I was put back by the quick call to vandalism, and thus was under the impression the blocked stemmed from that rationale. I looked over the reverts, but one was to a bot, correcting a false positive. I don't think correcting a bot that mistook his edit for vandalism counts as a revert (undoing another editors edit). The anon editor himself states this same belief on this talk page. I don't think he thought he was in violation. Perhaps some clarification and a warning is in order instead of the block? I don't have any vested interest in this except that his edits were quite valid--although I don't approve of the edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the editor contest the block. I am amicable to unblock if other admins review it and agree with your assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am confused here

Well, I know it must feel (from looking at some of the sections here in your talk page) that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, but I am kinda curious. This is the second 3RR I've filed on two separate users for violating 3RR. In both cases, you've chosen to protect the article. Splendid, but that doesn't address the impact of the violation. In the first case, the fellow was new, so I get the protection move (even though there was no accompanying warning to the user, which should have happened)/ In this second instance, the user is experienced and knows full well what 3RR is. Yet, you perform precisely the same action. Protecting the article is always nice, but it blanket-penalizes everyone who wishes to edit and choses not to violate 3RR. As the reported user knows the rules, and violated 3RR anyway, perhaps the second 3RR complaint deserves reconsideration and would be more effective than page protection. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not protect the second article. Someone else did; I just reported the fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but your reportage of that gives the impression that the matter has been resolved, and you have been here long enough to know precisely that. Does your reporting the matter resolve the complaint? Does it undo the actual 3RR? To both questions, the answer is no. Please don't assume that I was born yesterday, Jossi. It does both of us a disservice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I can see that you are upset, but please note that I did report this in good faith (I checked the 3RR report and when I went to check the article, found it protected). As you know, you can always request unprotection at WP:RFPP where it will be evaluated by another admin. Sorry if this has upset you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to lose my cool a bit there. It just seemed weird that both instances of me reporting someone for 3RR, resulted in both people walking scot-free. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello,

You recently closed off the discussion regarding my claims that Yahel Guhan had been stalking me, saying that I must pursue a user conduct RFC. What I don't understand is that when I was blocked, there was no RfC, where I would have the chance of defending myself, promise to amend my attitude, and have the privilege of the community deciding as opposed to one person. Why is WP:STALK not applied consistently?

Also an RfC usually has harsh consequences for a user (if it turns out the user has indeed been acting poorly). I'm not looking for harsh consequences (such as a week long block ). I'm only looking for an admin to warn user Yahel Guhan of his actions and of consequences if his actions continue, (because clearly he doesn't take my comments seriously).Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting to continue the same discussion onto another forum. Just give it up. Yahel Guhan 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you let jossi answer instead of following me here too.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You both need to find a way to work together. Escalation of this issue may only result eventually on sanctions against both of you. Pursue WP:DR if you are stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ready to resume editing?

Thanks for your offer, but the problem is that the editor engaging in questionable edits refuses to discuss his changes. For example, Yosemitesam25 has recently asked for protection to be lifted so he can remove content from Stephen Kinzer. Since most, if not all of Kinzer's material is non-controversial and can be found in multiple historical works on the subject, I found the request odd. When asked why the material should be removed, Yosemitesam25 evaded the question and changed the subject. If protection was lifted, the user will go right back to the same editing behavior. Since the editor will not explain his proposed edits, I do not see how lifting protection will benefit the article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for he heads-up Viriditas. Protection will eventually be lifted, so I would advise to use the time judiciously and pursue WP:DR, such as WP:MEDIATION. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but how do you deal with someone who isn't interested in writing encyclopedic articles, but only in promoting a particular POV? All the DR in the world isn't going to change the situation. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles in with strong POVs come to play. My experience? If editors want a stable article and accept the fact that it will not be the article they want, but one that they could live with, WP:DR would help. If any side of the dispute is not willing to compromise and find common ground, then DR will demonstrate that, bring these intentions to the surface, and eventually be brought up to arbitration. The process may be long and tedious, but it works.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position but I think we have a consensus that paragraphs five and six ought to be removed. For the time being, I support removing them, it appears that Viriditas agrees, but Arjuna may have concerns requiring protracted negotiation. Please refer to the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom talk page for details of the partial settlement. I still think the page ought to remain protected but would you be able to remove paragraphs five and six for the moment? We may still have a long way to go but I think, in fairness, that it would be appropriate to reflect the current consensus pending further compromise. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Open mail relay

Open mail relay is semi-protected, but you used a full-protect template. Did you mean to use the other one? (Got into this via WP:30) ffm 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Hi Jossi. You might be interested in this discussion. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

CFS page

Jossi, I need your help. I am trying to edit this page, but so far anything no matter how neutral, or factual is automatically being reverted. I try to talk it out on the discussion page but GreenJoe won't really respond. He merely calls my addition to the page propaganda and reverts it automatically. It's really unfair. Another user I see had attempted to add a Campaign section to the page and that was reverted as well. I don't know what to do as he is clearly not interested in talking about it. Also if you read in the discussion page at the bottom one of the editors is a right-wing pundit with a vested interest in keeping the CFS page as biased in his favor as possible. Can you do something? I'm new to wiki and have taken GreenJoe to be acting in goodfaith but I'm really starting to wonder. All I want to do is add some basic factual and complete information about this organization but GreenJoe seems interested in no discussion at all. It's really frustrating as hell and locking the page didn't seem to solve anything. Can you message me on my talk page or respond in the discussion page? Thanks! Nocandu1976 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded in article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Jossi: There have been new edits made to the page by GreenJoe which I think are innapropriate given that we are in the process of dispute resolution. He is obviously unwilling or unable to reason and to respond to rational dialog. I have offered to edit the services section to tone down the language a little but he has chosen to post that advert tag at the top and delete the ISIC card section altogether. The ISIC card is probably one of the most important CFS services offered. I don't think it's appropriate for it to be removed especially when we are trying to work this out.Nocandu1976 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking

Jossi...I'm being followed, and I would like your opinion on how kosher this is. My contribution [158]; his contributions [159]. Other recent stalkers following me have been open proxies. After doing a TOR check, [160], it says this is a TOR Exit node (I'm not clear what this means). I reported it here [161]. Your thoughts would be appreciated. DanaUllman^Talk 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tor nodes are blocked on-sight if there is abuse. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have observed and reported on at least 6 open proxies abusers in the past week. Based on the type of comments they have been making, I sense that it may be the same person. If you have any advice for me, I'm open to hearing it. DanaUllman^Talk 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow article, continued

I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position but I think we have a consensus that paragraphs five and six ought to be removed. For the time being, I support removing them, it appears that Viriditas agrees, but Arjuna may have concerns requiring protracted negotiation. Please refer to the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom talk page for details of the partial settlement. I still think the page ought to remain protected but would you be able to remove paragraphs five and six for the moment? We may still have a long way to go but I think, in fairness, that it would be appropriate to reflect the current consensus pending further compromise. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm trying to understand WP:NPA. I thought tempers were cooling done for a moment but I happened to read the other comments on your talk page, clearly directed at me, describing "an editor" who is "deaf", and on a "jihad"[[162]]. This same editor has also referred to me as "paranoid", "fringe", a "major pusher"[[163]],outrageous and disgusting[[164]], twisted reasoning, far right gibberish, convoluted, [[165]], disingenuos, lame,[[166]]. On the other hand, other editors with whom I have a difference of opinion have been very kind and patient. The editor who is making these comments continues to insist that he is not personally attacking me. Are these personal attacks? Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

You said you would block anyone who reverted, and Akamakw (talk · contribs) reverted. GreenJoe 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he's a puppet of Nocandu1976 (talk · contribs). GreenJoe 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Final_Fantasy_VII_(Famicom)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Final_Fantasy_VII_(Famicom). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nori198 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

michael ratner

you made an accusation that i posted defamatory material and threatened to block me - please explain: what was defamatory, specifically. I do not particulary care for your threats . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

and I might add, the excuse given last time by an admin was that the information was from a blog - the information is now from a newspaper the bias and threats here on the part of you and others is really disgusting. Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow (again)

Hi Jossi, we've reached a consensus[[167]][[168]] Could you please implement the changes and leave the page protected until we resolve how to develop the rest of the article? Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes: paras 5 and 6 in the lead. I just now added the full text that is to be deleted to the talk page. Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow: paras 5 and 6 (lead section)

Yes: paras 5 and 6 in the lead. I just now added the full text that is to be deleted to the Overthrow talk page (just below your request for the exact text to be deleted). Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Normal Bob Smith

Sorry for causing this trouble, but I think reached an agreement has been reached. Could you unprotect the page? Thanks, and sorry again.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi Jossi, you protected the page for Alcoholics Anonymous for a week, thanks for that no sure who asked you to but it's done a great job in reducing the actions of a couple of vandals who plague the page. Is there any chance you can extend the protect for a longer period, or if not how do we (the regular editors) get that put in place?

Thanks Mr Miles 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:RucasHost

And sometimes, you do need to rub it in. GreenJoe 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"List of" article

Thanks for your help getting this new article toward a sourced state. I'm very interested in that OLMOS article that you've cited. So you think you could email me a scan, or quote and translate the bits that are relevant? Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dick. Did I cite OLMOS? I do not recall that... can you give me a diff? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, it was 20-dude, here. You may have restored it at one point. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Due weight

Regarding your edit here: I'd appreciate some occasional elaboration. In my opinion, wp:due is of directle relevance for that section since it talks about content guidelines, and I thought npov and wp:due in particular should be mentioned there. Dorftrottel (taunt) 21:09, March 15, 2008

That section is related to Notability in the context of not directly limiting article content. I failed to see what WP:UNDUE had to do with the text in that section. See the lead of WP:NOTABILITY: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your unfair block of User:Connerroznovsky1

I've been looking forward to blocking this user for minutes. And as soon as I get my chance, you beat me to the trigger. It just isn't fair. Sigh. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Canons of page construction

I'm just curious what you think of this page being a possible FAC? It appears to satisfy the criteria to me. Since I'm new to the FAC process I felt it'd be inappropriate to nominate an article you and dicklyon worked hard on, and I had nothing to do with. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue. Go ahead and nominate; it is much better when it is not a self-nom. Drop me a line if you do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canons of page construction --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i have a question because im new

I have put a lot of effort into an article called Serbs of Croatia. What is the best way to prevent it from vandalism? Thanks for your time. Your answer will help a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat articles, should go to RFAR

In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit premature, IMO, but maybe unavoidable at this stage. Good progress has been made, although with substantial disruption by some editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Northwest Territory Article

I've made changes to the Northwest Territory that certainly isn't if you read vandalism if you read the discussion page. I'm pretty sure it's a bot that is reverting it, the changes need to stay. Mbarry829 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My apologies. I have removed these warnings. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I figured as such. Mbarry829 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

You declined to unprotect, but did you look at the deletions that were locked in? RedSpruce is coming off of a 24 hour block for his deletions at another article, and there are two open ANIs on him.

• Here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. He even reverted back to his typographical error in the name of the author. *Here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article. Its not a matter of editorial opinion, its wholesale deletion of whatever I add.

His strategy is to delete all my additions, then ask for the page to be protected to lock in his changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP deletion discussion

Could you voice your opinion here on what I see as a potential BLP violation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashley_Alexandra_Dupré_%282nd_nomination%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---