User talk:Joebeone

Welcome

Hi Joe. I saw you never got a proper canned welcome message to Wikipedia, so here you go:

Welcome!

Hello, Joebeone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Happy editing! Mike Dillon 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I made you think you did something wrong. I really was just giving you a cheesy belated welcome because I noticed that nobody had ever posted to your Talk page. Mike Dillon 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley

Hi Joseph. I just wanted to let you know that I'm no longer watching University of California, Berkeley and don't intend to work on it in the future. I realized that that article has basically been a simmering edit war between those who want to present the admittedly impressive facts about the University and those who want to editorialize and say what a great place "Cal" is. After starting the discussion over the changes by User:Ckoala84, I realized that I just don't care. I waste enough time on Wikipedia without having to "debate" whether we should call the University "Cal" throughout the article. Sorry I can't be part of making UC Berkeley a featured article. Happy editing. Mike Dillon 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borda fixed point

I'd like to know what you think about the Borda fixed point issue. I meant for this to be a straightforward discussion of whether the topic should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm surprised by how it escalated so quickly. If it seems sudden that I've brought this to mediation, realize that Colignatus' comment ended with a (confusing and misguided) threat towards me, and any way I can see to respond without dispute resolution would make the situation worse.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RFC now: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colignatus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you endorsed it already. Thanks. I'll move it to approved RfCs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged your statement in with mine. You're not an outside view, since you're directly involved in the dispute and you've certified the RfC. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew - looks like it's over. I wouldn't worry at all about the e-mail; I imagine it's just going to make your dean's secretary's morning a bit more surreal. On my side, I find the image of President Hockfield taking time to look at a Wikipedia dispute very amusing. "Forget acquiring research grants, I'll go look at what one undergrad is doing on the Web."

Anyway, thanks for coming to my defense and sorry that you got wrapped up in this. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol... My Dean responded with "Well, I spent exactly one second looking at the Word DOC and promise to spend no longer!" -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. I like your dean's style. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mac Dre revert

Hey Joebeone. I see what you mean. I was just thinking about how he died before Keak Da Sneak created the term. But you're right, perhaps you could write "gangsta rapper and considered one of the predecesors of the hyphy movement". Just an thought, you can do whatever you want with it. ;) P.S. it looks like Thizzface.gif got deleted, oh well. --Khoikhoi 05:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that language... too bad about thiz face! Joebeone (Talk) 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

electronic voting

Please explain what you mean by "blasting a lot of good information out of existence." I added information not removed. I have no problem with starting a dialogue. I was in the process of writing to the talk page during your revert. There are two opposition sections now, just retitled. Please don't remove all my new information. 68.50.103.212 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. We'll call it even for me initially forgetting to put my reasons for edditing in the comments. -- 68.50.103.212 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with DRE voting machine I think our efforts have made for a much more complete and accurate article. 68.50.103.212 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so too... man, I wrote over some stuff, as you may see, and it was a pain to get it back. I hope I got it all in there. More another time... I'm going to avoid conflicting edits and finally get to cleaning my fridge out! -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you got them all except the part about NM that you removed. At one point your conflicting edits put it back, but I removed it again when moving the security and concerns sections. 68.50.103.212 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HipHop WikiProject

Hello, I noticed you have edited Hip Hop related articles. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. -- βig¶ 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd

Hi, thanks for the PDF, I've read it. :) Though I still didn't see anything about the hat, or anything that listed her as "premier researcher". But it can definitely be used as a reference in the article. Also, just to be clear: Your editing the article isn't the problem. I'm not attacking you, I'm not attacking Danah. I've heard her speak (sans ears), and I agree that she's a remarkable individual with timely and fascinating research. The question in my mind was whether or not she had amassed a sufficient body of work to make the "notability" case. Please keep in mind that I have *not* gone through and read all her papers, nor read all of the articles about her -- in my mind, the Wikipedia bio needed to make that case. To be honest, when I first saw it, the answer was, "No, this is just a fluff piece by a friend." But you've been putting a lot of work into it, and it's been dramatically improved. :) Things that I'd recommend adding, would be a list of her better-known papers, along with all the articles you've found. Also, when citing sources, you don't necessarily have to use the footnote system (which can be cumbersome). It's also acceptable to use an inline citation like this: [1], which may make things easier on you. And if you have any other questions, let me know! --Elonka 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you run into anything with biographical information on her? Like when/where she was born, what her parents did, anything like that? --Elonka 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been looking... I'll keep my eyes peeled. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some stuff, and added it to the article. I did an extensive rewrite, though it hurt a bit to delete all the great "refs" you did! I wanted to give it a completely new look through, to make the notability case clear and unambiguous. If you think I missed anything, or deleted something that you still feel is important, please feel free to go in and continue editing. :) --Elonka 17:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, may I recommend that you take a step back from the Danah Boyd article? By your own admission you have a personal relationship with the subject, which makes it difficult to remain objective. I'm also noticing that you're making very rapid "knee jerk" edits, as well as using emotional language such as "silly", all of which could potentially come back to cause problems for you later in future editing issues. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership, and taking a deep breath. My guess is that in the future, you are going to want to have a reputation as a calm and respected Wikipedia editor. However, engaging in edit wars, saying things like, "The media got it wrong," and trying to present yourself as knowing the truth better than the New York Times and multiple other media outlets, are not going to give you longterm credibility on Wikipedia. Please carefully consider your actions. It might even be worth leaving controversial articles alone for 24 hours, to ensure that other editors have a chance to weigh in with their own opinions. Wikipedia tends to move very slowly, with some decisions taking weeks to make. If you try to make quick changes and then keep checking back every few minutes to see if your changes "stick", and immediately revert anything you disagree with, you're just making yourself look bad. --Elonka 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I'll step back for one week. I do think that perfectly adhering to wikipedia policy and guidelines results in an inferior wikipedia... but maybe that's for the best. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 24 hours is probably plenty, but if you want to make it a week, that's your call. Wikipedia is a big place, and there are thousands of other articles which I'm sure would benefit from your attention. :) And for what it's worth, I do completely agree with you that too rigid adherence to rules and policy can be A Bad Thing. But in my own Wikipedia experience, more often than not the guidelines have helped to reduce problems, rather than cause them. In the meantime, do we perhaps have some other overlapping area of expertise that we could use to work together on a different article? Danah's bio has definitely been more stressful than most, but I'd love to figure out a way to develop a good working relationship with you on some other subject? Is there another topic that you think would benefit from a Wikipedia article? Or, take a look at my own list of "articles I want to work on someday" at User:Elonka, and if you see one that interests you, let me know! --Elonka 00:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that list that I have particular expertise or knowledge on... but thanks for the offer. I tend to work on voting and election related articles as well as computer science and I'd like to get into astrophysics (I have masters degrees in both astrophysics and information). best... -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I was pointed at Danah's blog by another Wikipedia editor, so it wasn't surprising to see more anonymous chatter on Danah's talk page. With as much traffic as Wikipedia gets, this kind of situation is actually sadly common -- one person decides that they want their way, and when they can't get it on Wikipedia, they start creating a fuss outside of Wikipedia. But unfortunately, all that's really happening is that Danah is making herself look worse and worse, the more she fusses about it. :/ I have to admit that my own opinion of her has been dropping steadily (and it started *really* high after I heard her speak at AAAS). But the way that she is handling herself in this situation, is going to color my perceptions of every other time that I hear her name or read her "research". Her claim to be a researcher is rapidly being eclipsed by a perception that she can't be an objective observer -- instead, she's probably heading for having Category:Wikipedia critics added to her bio.

By the way, I was asking around, and it looks like the lowercase question has already been discussed extensively, in regards to corporate trademarks. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). It's been discussed, and voted on, and the general community consensus is to capitalize. --Elonka 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the help.

Thanks again Rawhide4u 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the above user's accusations on the Cabal page, and laid out the diffs in my defense. I hope that you will consider my contributions to the project and the impression I have made on my peers before you take the statements made against me at face value. I will state at the outset that any changes I have made to the above user's edits were necessary, and that I responded to every post he made to me until he became abusive. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. BD2412 T 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the matter is effectively closed at this point? The other party appears to have quit Wikipedia. BD2412 T 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. -- Joebeone (Talk) 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my case, but

Hi, I appreciate you taking my case, but I was wrong because I didn't know about the "original research" policy. Thanks anyway! Jbm867 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Assignments

I'm sorry but I had to add a new section What to avoid about the assignments you made. It's, of course, not prohibited - it just doesn't seem to be a good idea. You should also have left an edit summary. I couldn't identify your assignments in the history of the page. Thank's for doing some office work at the Mediation Cabal anyway ;-) --Fasten 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable magician

Hiya, there's an article that's headed for deletion, Paul Andrews (magician). I thought I'd let you know about it in case you wanted to set your watchlist, and observe the process of the deletion of a "real" vanity page. In fact, if you'd like to submit it for deletion in order to understand the process, feel free, otherwise I'll probably get to it later this week, if no one else does. FYI, --Elonka 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll add it. I also recently saw your name fly by my screen on Dave Farber's list in reference to the CIA (or NSA) sculpture. Cool! I don't think I'll nomitate the page for AfD, but I'll watch. I've recently become involved with the mediation cabal, which is neat as well. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, submitted. Thanks for the tip on the Dave Farber page, too. The media rush over the last couple weeks has been intense, and I think my name showed up in something like 80 different newspapers[2], plus multiple television and radio interviews (I got the biggest rush out of being on NPR's "All Things Considered"[3], cause I'm such an NPR fan-girl <grin>). I'm still sorting through the links[4][5], but if you'd like a copy of anything, let me know. :) --Elonka 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'll check out that NPR piece... I've been listening to NPR since I could hear as my parents listened to it every day... the All Things Considered intro musical theme has a very deep association to my childhood when I hear it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation cabal NAS case

Hi. The mediation cabal case at New anti-Semitism was taken on by someone, who was then, unfairly in my opinion, rejected by one of the interested parties. This case won't be continuing, but not because it was abandoned by the submitter (me) TreveX^talk 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tired light

I looked into this already. The debate is done and the original complainer wants the case closed (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-04 tired light). jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Lets just close it out.[reply]

Image:Yochai benkler at boalt.jpg

Hi Joebone, thank you for uploading the image of Mr Benkler. Do you have an image with a higher resolution? If so, could you please upload it, too? It would be best to upload the image to Wikimedia:Commons. That would be nice for other downstream uses. Thank you, yours sincerely, Longbow4u 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Will look into Wikimedia:Commons... although might not happen for a while. Let me know if it's urgent. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've made the high-res version of the file available here: commons:Image:Yochai_benkler_boalt_high-res.JPG. best, -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... I've got an ogg file of the talk that would probably be great for wikimedia:commons. However, it's like 40+MB and the session or whatever timed out when I tried to upload it. Is there an sftp/ftp server or something where I can transfer large file to wikimedia:commons? -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not answer earlier, but I went for two weeks holidays and forgot about my request. I categorized the image. The audio file would be great. The Commons upload limit is currently at 18 MB. Perhaps you could use the free programm Audacity to split the file in two parts or use additional compression in the options menu. Longbow4u 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload the splitted file, do not forget to check the box "ignore all warnings". All files bigger than 5 MB and smaller than about 18 MB receive a warning message. Then only files bigger than 18 MB time out. Longbow4u 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very useful to know! -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall the Topalov cabal mediation case be closed?

Hi I have noticed that User:Danielpi has been ignoring the case these past several days. He has not been taking a vacation because his user contributions clearly show that he has been active during these days. Shall the case be closed? Dionyseus 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is warranted. more in a bit, -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citing question

Joe, I also wanted to say I really dig your homepage, you seem like a very interesting guy. I'd like to learn more about how to cite stuff and so forth dealing with the bay area hip hop culture, etc . . . Any advice / help would be much appreciated (just please don't look at where I go to school) Thanks a ton, Carlos

Heh... thanks.

Citing is pretty simple. In the simplest sense, for web-available content that you wish to cite, you can just put a URL in between brakets like so: [http://www.google.com/] which will look like this: [6].

For more complex citations, such as to a TV show, DVD, journal article, books, etc. you should probably use the <ref> tags (see more here WP:FN). You can place a <ref> tag, then one of the citation templates listed here (templates are things in curly brakets "{{...}}"), and then the end </ref> tag. Then, to get the references to show up, you just have to place a <references/> tag near the end in a section labeled as "Notes" or "References". -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veselin Topalov

Sorry, I was a bit absent for the end of that mediation. Final exams and all prevented me from checking into Wikipedia. Thanks much for your civil, impartial, and expedient handling of the mediation. I am entirely satisfied with the compromise. Cheers, Danny Pi 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad things worked out. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links in Yochai Benkler

Hi, I think that those external links in Yochai Benkler are more relevant to the article of The Wealth of Networks. There is no need to duplicate them in the article of Yochai Benkler. That's why I think they are unnecessary links in there. Please let me know your opinions. --Neo-Jay 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is a good point. I'll remove the Wealth links from Yochai now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity med

Thanks for notifying about the mediation cabal. I will respond after my two term wiki-break. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best, if you haven't already, to put a note to this effect on the case page so that KV and others that may be involved know this as well. best, -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Question

What's the easiest way to fix vandalism such as that on the E-40 page today? -- Carlos 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get the diff (in "history") between the bad version and the older good version... click on the "Revision as of..." link. Then "edit this page" and simply save the older page with a comment like "revert vandalism" or "rvv" (the same thing). -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity mediation

I'll take a stab at the christianity spat, though both insist on their own POVSarazani 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a ton... I did try to disentangle this issue, but there must be something I'm missing. It would seem that there must be a set of requirements that both could agree upon to bind further mediation. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to email them in private is that ok, or does it all need to be 'out in the open?'Sarazani 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had offered to help with anything technical. Is there something specific that you need subject matter help with? jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the one thing that I could use help on is the question of sourcing in this dispute. Str doesn't seem to want to source stuff that is "common sense" because the article is a review (high-level) article, and the other person (KV) is providing sourced information. Also, I could use help pulling out all the pieces of the dispute and defining parameters within which we can get a solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

started Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity page2

Great... exactly what this mediation needs. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with that mediation? jbolden1517 ^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away on business for a week, so I don't yet know. -- Joebeone (Talk) 14:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphy

I saw you reverted the "highly reactionary" part. I think Keak talks about the evolution of the word, and i believe he mentions "highly reactionary." I'm not 100% sure though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skhatri2005 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 June 2006.

Great... if he says that, it would be good to get a decent source for the origin of hyphy. Where did you see/hear that? We should add it back and then cite it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veselin Topalov Mediation

Joebeone, hello. You probably don't remember me, but I was involved in a [dispute], which you mediated a month or two ago regarding chess champion Veselin Topalov, and the cheating allegations made against him. I'm sorry to say that the conflict has flared up once again, and we're now in arbitration (Dionyseus did some "research" and decided the compromise was no longer valid).

I'm not going to ask you to take sides or anything, but Dionyseus is claiming that he "won" the mediation [(Fourth Paragraph Down)]. He's also claiming that it was "proven" in our mediation that my sources were unreliable. As I'm sure you have a life outside of Wiki (and I notice you mediate many disputes), I'll remind you that I provided numerous links, which Dionyseus dismissed for various reasons (which I considered fallacious, since those sources are all well established chess publications). You tried to achieve consensus about what might constitute a valid source, and we finally settled on including a quote from Andy Soltis's NY Post article about the cheating in the footnotes. At no point, however, was it agreed that my citations were not legitimate. Certainly, I never conceded such a thing, and having mediated a couple disputes myself, I know that's not the point of mediation. We merely excluded sources for the sake of finding compromise. However, Dionyseus is now acting as though it was a ruling on your part. Again, I'm not asking you to take sides, but if you could clarify on the arbitration page [Here] what the nature of that mediation was, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that I claimed that I won the mediation case and for this I apologize. However I recently found evidence that Soltis is unreliable, and if I had known of this during the mediation case I would not have agreed to that compromise offer. I don't think this case should be in arbitration, I think it can be solved in another mediation case, it is only a minor matter of content. Unfortunately DanielPi is now trying to make it seem as if I'm some evil editor who is incapable of compromises, he is searching through my entire contribution history, attempting to get help from anyone involved in my past arguments. Fortunately though, he has been unable to get any help yet. Dionyseus 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this again, I realize you probably don't want to deal with this crap all over again. However, in spite of what he's just written, Dionyseus is still claiming on the arbitration page that my citations were "disproven" in mediation. As for Dionyseus's claims that I'm trying to dig up old conflicts, I'm simply trying to find cases of bad behavior outside of the case in question. I don't think that this is either unethical or unfair, since to prove irresponsible editing, the burden of proof lies with me. If interested, you can look at the arbcom page to see for yourself the list of (what I believe are) infractions committed by Dionyseus. No doubt he has explanations for each occurrance, but I do believe I have a case. At any rate, I reiterate that I'm not asking you to take sides, but merely to clarify the nature of the mediation.Danny Pi 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations didn't meet the criteria. It was actually Joebeone who was able to find the Soltis article, and we only agreed to use it because at that time we thought it met the criteria. However I recently found evidence that indicates Soltis is not reliable, that his articles are mainly for entertainment, if I had known this I would not have accepted that compromise offer. DanielPi is claiming I'm some evil editor who is unable to compromise, but this is untrue and I'm willing to compromise if reliable sources are provided. I believe this should not be in arbitration, it can be solved in another mediation case because the matter deals with content, not conduct. Dionyseus 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there just aren't the number of cites (like any, really) that I would want if I were editing the page in order to include such a statement in a living persons biography on wikipedia. Unless a new investigative piece pops up in a reliable, credible source, I really don't feel it should be included at all. Of course, that was not the terms of the mediation compromise; however, things do change so it's not as if compromises are made in disregard of new information. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Chess Today" citation isn't credible? Its editor is a famous GM. Former champion Garry Kasparov is a regular contributor to the magazine. Anand, Svidler, Polgar (all top tier players) are subscribers to the publication. Isn't that about as credible as it gets? I also had a 6 to 2 majority on my side. You yourself provided the NY Post source. Therefore, I must say I'm a bit surprised that you seem to clearly be on Dionyseus's side now. Of course, you have the right to your opinion (since we're no longer in a mediation context), but considering how your initial compromise suggestion was just rephrasing what I had already written, I am curious why you're now of the opinion that it should have been stricken altogether? At any rate, regardless of your personal opinion, surely as a mediator, you don't think that it was "proved" that my sources were unreliable, do you? You should also be aware that Dionyseus is now claiming you as a supporter on Arbcom.Danny Pi 05:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, DanielPi had already presented that Chess Today citation as part of his evidence in the mediation case that the allegation was "widely reported," and I believe we all agreed in the mediation case that it does not meet the criteria. This is the "Chess Today" citation DanielPi is referring to: [7]. As you can see, the entire article consists of merely two sentences, and GM Baburin does not include his opinion on the matter. Dionyseus 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We" did not agree that Chess Today failed any criteria. I certainly feel that it's one of the most respected publications out there, so *I* certainly did not concede that point. Joebeone had not commented on its legitimacy. In the mediation, he said he just wanted to find a source we could all agree on, which did not mean that we all agreed that "Chess Today" was illegitimate. Although I've pointed this out before, the site in question merely quotes excerpt from a longer article (i.e. there is a longer article out there), but considering its readership, many people have read the article, and it therefore contributes to the claim that the allegations are "well publicized." It was quoted again at chessbase, a source that you yourself (Dionyseus) have used repeatedly. Furthermore, the site it's on is the chess olympiad official website. How could that be seen as anything less than legitimate. I don't see why I should be penalized for not pursuing the point in the interest of compromise during mediation. Furthermore, for the millionth time, I fail to see what GM Baburin's opinion has to do with the "widely reported" claim. That he declines to offer an opinion is a mark of journalistic integrity.Danny Pi 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanielPi please provide the Chessbase citation of the alleged cheating. Also, if the cheating allegation was so "widely reported" as you repeatedly claim, why can't you provide citations that meets Wikipedia's criteria? Dionyseus 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in rehashing this here. In fact, the point in question now is conduct not content. Since you asked for it, the chessbase article is [here], and the interviewer asks Nigel Short, "Alex Baburin reported in "Chess Today" issue #1831, that an "unknown participant in the World Chess Championship in San Luis" had accused Veselin Topalov of using outside help to win the title. Cheparinov used computer analysis of the game and then secretly signaled the future champion for the next move. Any comment?" I understand that you have rejected my sources. I have reviewed the wiki criteria, and my citations satisfy those criteria. I don't know on what basis you're claiming they fail, but the mediation is over. I'm just here to ask Joebeone to confirm that you didn't "prove" anything about the reliability of my sources. Indeed, that mediation does not produce verdicts but compromises (which you violated).Danny Pi 05:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a matter of conduct? I am fully capable of compromising and you know that, afterall we were able to come into an agreement in the Kramnik article just a few days ago [8]. As for that Chessbase article of an interview from the web based magazine 'Chess Chronicle', I like Short's quick response "No. I am fully aware of the allegations. I have nothing to say unless a formal protest is made." It's been what, over 8 months since the San Luis tournament and the accuser never identified himself, never filed a formal protest. If Topalov gets accused again and the accuser identifies himself and files a formal process I'd allow the allegation to be included in the article. Dionyseus 05:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you fail to distinguish between "Topalov cheated," and "It was widely reported that Topalov cheated." I never stated, proposed, nor argued for the former, and I refuse to rehash the issue here at this time. As for conflict and conduct: the arbitration is about your conduct, which I claim is irresponsible and combatative. This was the only mediation wherein I've been a disputant- ever. I have always achieved consensus on other edits. In fact, you and your teammate Ryan Delaney are the only wikipedeans with whom I've ever had a conflict. You, on the other hand, have had numerous conflicts, frequently RV-ing and arguing POV with other editors. At this stage, arbitration is about your conduct. The Topalov article is secondary.Danny Pi 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I am on neither side. I definitely feel that allegations of cheating on a personal biography wikipedia page where the person is still alive require a heightened notion of sourcing. I encourage both of you to think beyond this particular dispute and ask yourselves, "Is the information of a high-enoughed sourced quality to rightfully include on the page?" and "What would the dis-service be if this type of information was not included?" This case, to me as someone who knows little of chess or its sources, seems to be that there isn't much in the way of credible sourcing to acknowledge its inclusion. However, I lack data about how "credible" sources are in Chess... so the first thing I suggest is that you two along with other chess-interested wikipedians create a list of credible chess sources. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procon.org sites

There is very little original content on Procon.org, with almost all of it being a collection of quotes by other people. If you wish to add them back, go ahead, though I suggest that you check that the pages are noteworthy. However, user:Proconorg adding them counts as linkspamming. Ladlergo 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the criteria for inclusion of links to external sites are judged by their quantity of original content. If that were the case, then no review articles in any discipline could be added to external links. I would argue that there is much value in aggregating discussions that have taken place in many different forums into one place. I think Procon.org does a good job of this and that their aggregation is NPOV and of high quality. I'm going to add them back where I see them. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further. -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Will do. -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avi rubin.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Avi rubin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Anno saxenian.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anno saxenian.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail

Joe, I'm in a bit of a dispute with another user on the VVPAT article and I know this is a subject area you have a fair amount of knlowedge about and interest in. I thought you might be able\ be interested in being of some assistance. I picked you in particular because of your views on the topic.

So if you've got a minute and the interest, check out the intro of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail article. I think the most contentious sentence that seems to be at issue is:

Also a printed vote on paper is not changeable by the voting machine opposed to a stored vote in computer memory.

I only take issue with saying that it is impossible, particularly when it's stipulated that the machine could be corrupt. A corrupt VVPAT could systematically invalidate votes. My attempt at a compromise was (and is still in the article):

A VVPAT enables voters to verify that their votes are cast as intended and serves as an additional barrier to changing or destroying votes.

The key being "barrier" rather than impossible.

P.S. You've been out of the Wikipedia electronic voting world for a while. It's hard to find informed opinions willing to edit... You're welcome back anytime! --Electiontechnology 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look; I've been studying for a big test. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. I'm waiting for a reaction from the user who I started this discussion with. We'll see how it goes. --Election Technology

I think he sort of missed the point I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voter_Verified_Paper_Audit_Trail&diff=90661851&oldid=90493228 --Election Technology 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, he all but reverted your edits, and removed your Brennan Center cite. He commented on the talk page. I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. Arbitration? Admin intervention? --Electiontechnology 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I don't even know what to say, check the VVPAT page and his comments on talk... --Electiontechnology 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turfin

joebeone, i saw this and thought you would have an interest in adding a page about turfin to the street dance template. i dont know much about it but hell- if krump has an article why not turfin Street dance is the article and the template for types of street dance is at the bottom. cheers Skhatri2005 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard hints about it... I'll look around and see if I can find enough for an article. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphy

No problem, Joe! Hopefully, you guys can work on the article without being disturbed! =) Nishkid 64 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VVPAT, evoting, and Taintain

Joe, thanks for all your efforts on the VVPAT article. At this point I feel like I should apologize for getting you involved... I had about the same experience with Taintain once already (which is why I invited you into the discussion), so I know what it's like. It is sad to see such an important article more or less hijacked by someone with such an obvious agenda... Best of luck Electiontechnology 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's probably appropriate to get an admin involved at some point if it continues to be an ego-battle. I'm not going to take the bait and will focus my efforts elsewhere. best, Joe -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobb Music

I was wondering if maybe it would be good to clean up the Mobb Music page and make it more streamlined with the hyphy page. We've done a lot of work on the hyphy page, but I don't know much about mobb music to do so. thanks Skhatri2005 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as in Mobb Deep? Other than that, I don't know it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRE Merger

Joe, Any chance you'd want to help come up with a solution for the DRE / electronic voting articles? Right now the DRE article is entirely duplicated in the electronic voting article. Anything you could add to the DRE article to make it more unique would be a great help. If I remember right, we're you involved int those voter info sheets on voting machines by model with EFF and verifiedvoting? Was there a license on that content? Any other suggestions? Also, I'd really like to be able to separate the general criticisms of electronic voting vs DREs, as DRE's have some really unique concerns and I'm concerned it they're getting buried. --Electiontechnology 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, hombre. I think we released those sheets under a CC-Attribution license. I'll check. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Joebeone! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Marc Davis (academic) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:American.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:American.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload that. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Joebeone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]