User talk:Jossi/Archive 16

Textual criticism

Jossi, I just happened to notice that you put this article for featured article review, but the article does not seem to be (or, have ever been) a featured article in the first place. Am I missing something ? (Just curious) Abecedare (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ec, coming to say the same. Jossi, can you do all the page moves and changes and updates to get it to FAC instead of FAR, or should I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake.. Ouch... Blame it on being a Friday.... Please move to FAC. Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you online now, Jossi? This will be tricky because there is a previous FAC and some missing help; I may need some admin pieces. Can you hang on a bit, while I do as much as I can, and then I'll get right back to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All set now; it's at WP:FAC. Since I don't have admin tools, I couldn't do it elegantly, but I used a cut-and-paste at one part to get the job done. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you'll need to correct your posts at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

User talk:Jonathan Tweet

User talk:Fremte

and I put a db-g6 on the faulty FAR page, so you might get to it before another admin does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake... I just realized that the article was already in FAC and needs work. I have withdrawn it. What a mess... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

I notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads'up ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of One Laptop per Child

See Criticism of One Laptop per Child.--Kozuch (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss in talk. I have that page in my watchlist. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama

Hi Jossi,Thanks for the references about self-published material. What I cited in the article was factual information. The Dalai Lama is being sued in the Indian Courts for supressing religious freedom. What would wikipedia take as evidence that this is the case, if I wanted to make that statement and give a citation? Thank you --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wessex inst page.

Hi,

I wondered if you could take a look a the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Institute_of_Technology page because someone is back with a single purpose account editing against consensus.

Thanks --Curuxz (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Coed y Pantwn

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Coed y Pantwn, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation

Hi Jossi: Thank you for your help here, but your actions have been reverted [1]. JNW (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Situation has been addressed. Thank you again. JNW (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ownership & crossposting

Jossi, as you well know responding to users on their talk pages is not "crossposting".[2][3][4] The notice at the top of your page says "I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page." You say you're going to respond here, but you respond on my page instead and you berate me for responding on your talk page.

Regarding ownership, you asked me for proof but then imply that you're not interested unless the ArbCom acts. Do you want proof of your ownership, and will you change your behavior if it's presented? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not interested unless the ArbCom acts. That is not what I said. What I said, is that you had the opportunity to present evidence, which you profusely did, but that seems to have been not enough. I can see that my involvement bothers you greatly, so maybe it is time that you look in the mirror. Now, if you can now stop this back and forth that is bordering in harassment, it will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also say this: if you have something constructive to say, I will be glad to take to heart. Any further comments that are not, will be mercilessly refactored from my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You started the "back and forth" by accusing me of bad faith. " Either you want to edit in a way that mislead readers, or you have taken an attitude to reduce material to the bare minimum as if this was a piece of poor journalism."[5] You have also complained about almost every thing I've added to the DLM article. Apparently it's my involvement that bothers you greatly. As for the ArbCom, they haven't found anything in my editing to complain about. Perhaps you should stop accusing me of bad faith unless you're prepared to give evidence of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have also complained about almost every thing I've added to the DLM article. I may have, and my reasons have been clearly presented and argued in talk page. Take it there, and ask other editors' input on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RodentofDeath

Hello Jossi. im not sure if i should have posted here, please excuse me, but I noticed you closed the sockpuppet action on RodentofDeath sockpuppet with no action. I noted that there were 4 users, including an adminstrator, who stated they belioeved it was a sock puppet for Rodent, as well as ip matching. How much more is needed? I suffered 12 months of abuse from this user with over 1,000 postings calling me a bitch, lesbian, pedophile, etc. It was probably the worst case of psochopathic stalking of a user that wikipedia has ever seen. Those who had dealings with Rodent such as Edgarde and myself can clearly see this is a Rodent sockpuppet. Please excuse me, im not critisizing your decision, but considering four editors, including an administraor and ip matching, could you please explain how you feel this is not Rodent when everyone else is convinced it is Rodent. Kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Susan. If you ever get that kind of harassment again from any user, just drop me a line here and will take care of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ThankYou kindly Jossi, I appreciate your offer. With that said, my question is still on the table as to why with 4 editors, including a administrator, and an ip match, why do you feel this is not Rodent, when everyone else does? If you cant answer, I understand. Also, can I appeal your decision here? If so, how? ThankYou kindly for your helpSusanbryce (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

the findings were inconclusive, so I thought to would be best to close. Any further activity by that user that resembles the banned user behavior/modus operandi, will be dealt with promptly. Let me know if that happens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

ThankYou you kindly for your helpSusanbryce (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

Hello. A discussion you participated in is used as evidence in the RfC/U I started. Fram (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jossi, I hope you could comment. GDB appears to have taken your failure to endorsement a ban as a carte blanche to ignore the input of the rest of the community. There is a section on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder that discusses your contribution, if you could add to it or expand on your opinion, it would be appreciated.

Also, I may have referred to you as 'she' or 'her' at some point - wikipedia messes with my gender pronouns and I always end up calling men women and vice-versa. Sorry! WLU (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Has tGDB engaged in edit warring after the last warning? If so, please post some diffs here and I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gathered some diffs from yesterday and today in this post:[6]. Fram (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... Why don't you pursue WP:DR instead of reverting each other? Would a page protection help? That will give you some time to ask help via RfCs or via mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more the ignoring of any dissenting opinion regards his edits and COI. The aspect that involves you specifically is his taking your failure to endorse a ban as a blanket permission to ignore all input. But I've already said so. Assembling diffs is as always tedious and time consuming, but ultimately more convincing than blank assertions. WLU (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bans are extraordinary measures and reserved for a time in which everything else has failed. What I see in that article is an edit war between editors, and that is not good. Pursuing WP:DR is the best option to assure stability in an article; sure, it will take work but it would be better than spending all that time in non-editorial activities as this exchange. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not just re-add the link. I asked for other users' opinions first, and followed their advice to add an indication of the language. I would rather question removing user's behaviour, who singled this one external link out and left other non-English sites in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I had seen that link as nauseam in another (AfD) debate, and knew that it had not enough info to make it worthwhile enough to be included as a Dutch language site on the English language Wikipedia. I have explained that already to you, but despite your addition of AGF to the RfC/U, you continue to question this. Furthermore, you ignored all other users' opinions except the one that suggested that you could leave it out or at least include the language. Asking the other parent, that is called around here... Fram (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi, I was just wondering if you could give me some assistance. I've been wanting to report two editors for some time due to persistant and constance breaches of WP:CIVIL. I'm actually unsure how to do that.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You can place a note at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a cookie

·:· Will Beback ·:· has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Not funny not cute and does not help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IP block

Just FYI I changed this IP block to Anon only. It was causing some problems with a registered account. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

I thought you were on a wikibreak? Welcome back :) -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just got back, Avi. Thanks for the welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 18	2 May 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure	Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA	WikiWorld: "World domination"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Did You Know ...	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 19	9 May 2008	About the Signpost

Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity	WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"
News and notes: Board elections, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities	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) 07:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi, you commented on the MarkBA case earlier and you seem like a very experienced user, so I'd like to ask a few questions. I didn't want to propose a community ban, only a substantial or indefinite block since I thought that is appropriate in the case of mass, abusive sockpuppetry and harassment and in this case the socking was done repeatedly. Where can I propose a simple block of MarkBA for his latest sockpuppetry and what kind of evidence is needed for this as CheckUser doesn't seem to be enough? What is the appropriate block length considering about 10 puppets 4 previous blocks,(3 of them on puppets), several warnings considering only CU confirmed instances? Apart from that if all the evidence were presented for a community ban proposal I don't think there could be a single admin who would oppose a community ban of MarkBA. However much of the evidence is unknown and uncollected now and, collecting full evidence would take several pages and a lot of time and effort. How can a community ban process get started anyway, is there a special page for it? I don't think Elonka's discussion page is appropriate for such purpose since the community will not be able to review there. And in general what is your advice on how to conduct a case such as this from an evidence presenting standpoint? Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you file a user Rf. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. This will give you and others to present evidence, as well as the community to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

IP reverts

Jossi, what did you find to be blatant vandalism about the edits of User:89.132.155.225? I think the IP had pretty good rationales for the edits, as the user explained. It's obviously a well-intentioned account. Metros (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Metros. The edit I reverted was this. Rationale for a massive delete of material, needs to be discussed in talk. An edit summary will not do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert the IP's edits at New Rochelle, New York‎? Also, why would you consider that vandalism? It was a good faith effort to improve the article as misguided as it can be seen. Metros (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pelikan tail afd

Hi Jossi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelikan tail commenting Now that we have an expert assisting with the article, it cam be further developed. However, the expert volunteer, User:Askari Mark, had commented

While I see no problem with leaving this as an independent article, perhaps a compromise position worth discussing would be to place the material currently available into the V-tail article as a separate section pending discovery of better published sources.

and voted to extend the AfD. Not to be nitpicky — keeping and merging are similar in terms of administrative action — it seems pretty clear that there was not a consensus to keep. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What would be the problem with a redirect? I see none. Note that unless there is consensus to delete, the result is keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically, "keep" "redirect" "merge" and "no consensus" are considered distinct outcomes, even though admin action is a binary decision. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My question is: How WP will suffer from keeping a redirect? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm saying the outcome was either "merge" or "no consensus". Outcomes of "keep" and "redirect" are contrary to an outcome of "merge". They are entirely different things to everyone besides the closing admin (you). Potatoswatter (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, which I applied here, is that unless there is a consensus to delete the article is kept. A closing admin may suggest further action to a "keep" such as expand, redirect, stubify, etc. but these are at the discretion of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes... it is true that you correctly assessed that nobody wanted to delete the article. However, to report a "result" which is different from the "consensus" is misleading. To merge and redirect is not to "keep". Also, the one expert, whom you cited, requested that the discussion be extended. This is because AfD discussions often accomplish more than that single binary decision. You might want to look at other closed AfDs. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Potatoswatter here Jossi. I could be wrong, but your comments above suggest a misunderstanding about how AfD's are closed. It is true that anything other than "delete" means the article is kept, but Potatoswatter is quite correct that "keep," "redirect," "merge," and "no consensus" mean quite different things. It is a very strange reading of consensus to say that the result was "keep and expand." The nominator wanted to delete, there was one keep vote, two merge votes, and one editor (the expert) who was on the fence and wanted the discussion to continue. Personally had I come across the AfD I would have almost certainly re-listed it since new information had come in and there was no clear consensus from the discussion. While doing this you might have listed it at a deletion sorting page, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology which can often bring more folks to the discussion. Otherwise a close of "no consensus" that mentioned the merge option would have been appropriate, or a "keep" that also alluded to the merge possibility, or even a "merge" itself would have made more sense. But "keep and expand" seems less a reading of consensus and more your own viewpoint.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as overly schoolmarmish, and I've only been closing AfD's a couple of weeks myself whereas you've been an admin for awhile. However I do think this close was problematic and your responses to Potatoswatter above only made me more wary. As such I felt it a good idea to weigh in here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now where the confusion was. The "result" was indeed no consensus, and my recommendation as a closing admin was to keep and expand. I have corrected the AfD closing text. Thank you both for your persistence in pointing out my mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD templates

Just as a heads up; [7][8]. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Test5-n

Template:Test5-n 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Jossi.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh... that is a pity, a rejection with 82.3% support? Oh well, erring on the side of conservativeness... In a few months we will surely see you up again for nomination, I am sure... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

AN/Arb enforcement

Hello Jossi. In following up on the suspected sock report, I see that you've implemented semi protections on Waldorf education and its talk page. The sock's most recent edits have been on two other articles involved in the topic ban, specifically PLANS, Talk:PLANS and Talk:Anthroposophy, and semi protections are probably warranted for a time there as well. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer with me, Will. I am too old and too wise for that. What Momento says is of no consequence. You, as an experienced admin and editor should know better than playing these silly games. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked editors to respond to Momento's assertion and I don't recall seeing you disagree with him. If you did please show me where. I don't see anyone suggesting that Collier isn't a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my comments, in bold prefaced by <<< ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Read also Jaen's comments. You keep pressing for blanket statements about a source being reliable or not. There is no such an absolute and I have always argued in this and other articles, as well as WP:RS/N. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayen says that Collier appears reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaen says more than that. Please continue the discussion in talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
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) 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

Had you read the discussion or the mediation cabal process, you'd find out that the consensus was reached long ago. There is only one editor (currently blocked for vandalism) who fiercely opposes it. There is not much common ground that we need to seek, as it is already there. Unless I'm wrong, of course and you meant something different ;) Pundit|utter 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're really blocking us in a corner here jossi - we already went through all these steps, the page was protected before, consensus was reached, and we went through mediation, where that one editor (Panel 2008) had nothing to support his arguments, and the mediator recognized that - see here. He ignored the mediators advice, and even if we did go to another dispute resolution method, there is no doubt that he'd ignore them again - and back to edit warring we'd go. Panel 2008 has brought NO reliable sources (in fact, after 2 months, I think the only source he brought was a politicians quote - hardly reliable). To add to that, he really leaves no space for compromise. He has yet to propose another alternative format, after being encouraged to do so. Basically, all he gives us to work with is "Romania is in Central Europe!!!". This isn't going to go anywhere. He is the only one who stands in the way of peace on this article - and it's clear to all editors involved here that he is a vandal. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If one user continues to be disruptive, despite efforts to seek dispute resolution, there is always the possibility of reporting the disruption at WP:AN/I, starting a user WP:RFC/USER and other such steps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point :D a page protection is quite an unusual move in case of one disruptive editor. Keep in mind, that the steps you mentioned have not been taken also because the mentioned user was blocked even before the mediation was over. Anyways, although the protection seems a bit out of the blue, it won't do any harm. I sometimes also prefer to protect pages as a form of edit war prevention and you may have not had the time to go through the lengthy discussions. No harm done, the protection can be only for good, even if is not the typical first choice of an administrative action. Take care! Pundit|utter 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

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/C68-FM-SV/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/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kenny gray

Hi Jossi. I realize that asking this question out of the blue might seem a little strange, but I respect your opinion. Recently I've become concerned that I might not be labeling newly created articles precisely in the CSD process. Apparently, the CSD process is considered too hasty for some people's tastes and is used as an excuse to criticize the editor. (See, for example, this troubling comment about "speedy deletions" made against some poor soul who was up for admin: [9]. It's comment 101 on the user's talk page.)

To give you an example, I recently patrolled this newly created article. It read:

"Kenneth Gray is best known for his job at the local market in the small coastal town of Blue Hill Maine. This market, Tradewinds, hired him on in the fish department. Kenneth is better known as Kenny or the Sex Kitten, but will come to many other names. His many skills include beer bong experience, football clotheslining skills, and plays winman for his homeboys any day of the week. He grew up in a rough part of Sedgwick commonly known as the Ridge Road."

I tagged this article as a speedy deletion under section G7: unremarkable people, or "an article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Upon tagging, it was immediately deleted by an admin. Good. Now, someone has informed me that, should I ever agree to subject myself to the tortures of an RfA (and I'm not sure it's even worth the stress, let alone something I want), my tags--among many other things, of course--would be carefully scrutinized. <sigh> Because the article read "Kenneth Gray is best known for his job at the local market..." would this mean that "unremarkable people" might not have been the correct tag, after all? Should it have been tagged as pure vandalism under G3? Should I have prodded the article instead? Should I have tagged it for a lengthy AfD? Should I have ignored the article, like all newly created articles, and let someone else patrol these pages in their free time because there are people out there who honestly think this kind of stuff is encyclopedic? <sigh>

What would you do? Thanks, J Readings (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. In these cases, is best to {{prod}} it, or AFD it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

lol, I'm the one who is being warned about my editing?

Perhaps you should visit the talk pages of those two articles and see that the user who dutifully reported me has rarely offered any concessions and is intent on having the article written in a very one-sided manner, even going so far as to ask one of them to be deleted. He has engaged in blanket reverts that have removed sources, publication info, spelling corrections and in the process reinserted grammar mistakes and added unsourced information and each time I have added information and fixed these glaring mistakes. And yet you're quite content on blaming me for disruptive behavior?

I have asked Grandmaster numerous times to demonstrate what he finds so disturbing in the sources. He has consistently failed each time to bring anything up besides an interview with one of the authors which he anyways explains through his own personal interpretation. Please keep a more balanced view of the situation. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Marshal. The other involved editors are already warned by virtue of having been involved in the ArbCom case. Now you are too, that's all. If you and others cannot find common ground, you could seek dispute resolution. Editing disputes are not resolved by constant back and forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility problems

Jossi, since I consider you strong on the issue of civility, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the editing situation on the talk page of the New Age article. A user, Redheylin, has in my view gotten a little abusive [10][11]. Of course, it is possible that I have gone beyond the point that is acceptable too, so your view on that would also be valuable because I would rather keep editing conditions as calm as is possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that editors there are doing pretty well... a vigorous debate, sure, but well within boundaries. Also, I note Jaen is there now helping out. He is an excellent editor, very calm, and well read on the subject. You are in good hands... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. But, if you are interested in the subject of the article, your presence as an editor is also welcome. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Jossi/Archive 16, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Jossi, I'm not sure of your role or activity in mediation in the past. Perhaps also, you didn't understand my point either. I merely wish to use the reliable sources noticeboard, to get further uninvolved opinion about the source. Of course, I'll in no way be bound by their decision, it's merely something I wish to use. If you have any further objections, please state them on my talk page. Cordially, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In extention, I know that you've been here for, well, nearly 4 years longer than I have. While the time on Wikipedia greatly differs, I would appreciate it if you could let me know about such things such as this in future if you could. And while I haven't been here long, I hope you can discuss things with me if you wish. And that goes for everyone in the case. I'd really appreciate a reply. Respectfully, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Helps if I know everything that's going on. I'm on Wikipedia at least 14 hours a day, so I'm generally on. I hope the time/experience difference won't be an obstruction to me, or to you. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I respect and appreciate your assistance in mediating this, regardless of your age or your experience in WP. IMO, a good mediator is one that can bring parties to agree on compromises that maybe they are not happy 100% with, but that they can live with. Hope you can bring us there... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope so too. While I've only been here 3 months, I feel that I'm probably best at mediation. Either way, I suppose this case will probably test me to he limit of my skills. I suppose we will just have to wait and see. This case will probably be a rather long and drawn out one, I'm going to be in it for the long haul. Whether this case closes before or after an RFA, we shall see, I ust want you to know that this is an extremely difficult dispute, and that I'll use every tool in my "mediator bag" when necessary, including RSN, ad on occasions, perhaps even RFC's.

That said, my ground rule has been laid down (no personal attacks/incivility), and I try to, well, make it stay that way. Incivility, on any user's part, makes it extremely difficult to mediate. Anyway, as I said before, please notify me of any AE threads, or any other threads related to this case, as it may be relevant. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your PAs from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

At Vassyana's suggestion I'm asking you to please remove PA material from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, see [12] for the material that imho is affected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, but an assessment of editor's behaviors. You have the right to disagree with my assessment, and can comment/reply with your own. For a description of what is considered a personal attack see: Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Jossi launching subtle personal attacks --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous. Please make some effort to learn what is meant by "personal attack" before making such wild accusations. Friday (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re AE

Thanks for letting me know. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about Cagan, Geaves, Collier as sources

Why did you not consider I should be an 'involved party' in the (Cabal) discussions? I understand much material that I was personally involved in was moved to the DLM article. You must recall my involvement in the discussions about all this. In fact I have had long discussions on these matters and edited the Collier quote which was discussed at length.PatW (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add yourself to the mediation. Just contact the mediator User:Steve_Crossin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. I'll do that in due course. It does seem to be dealing with the things that really need to be clearer. (at least in my mind) PatW (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

minor question, re: your name

I've seen you use Jossi, and jossi, the latter being the most prevalent. I prefer to get names correct when possible. I believe that "Jossi" is your given birthname, which may or may not be relevant in terms of your online pseudonym. Which brings me to my question, what is the "proper" spelling of your name here please? Thanks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, from Hebrew: יוסי is a nickname. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

G9 contribution

Hey, how come you removed my additions to G9 consortium? The additions I made were a neutral opinon from ABC news and a Media Release.

the additions i made were in regards to the name change to TERRiA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlecrusader (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

about the ED thing

Hi jossi - I just noticed your edit and thought I'd better draw your attention to the rather extensive discussions on that particular matter. I think it'd be helpful if you would swing by the talk page and make a note / give a bit of a rationale. It'd be great to avoid the whole thing kicking off (again)! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't believe (personaly) that any link to ED should exist, it is allowable in this instance. No sense in wasting your time on it. See the reasoning Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_1#Whitelisted. --Hu12 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Hi Jossi, What was your rationale behind semi protecting this article? Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was requested at WP:RFPP, based on anon edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Jossi. OK, I see the request. However, looking at the policy regarding semi protection there are a couple of points worth noting. First, semi protection should not be used purely to exclude anonymous users, and secondly, most importantly, it shouldn't be used to control content disputes. This point is emphasised in the policy. Whatever else might be thought of about the goings on at Great Britain and Ireland, it was a very clear content dispute that prompted the request. There was no vandalism. Named editors (including me, it has to be said) have, at various times, been as much involved as the IPs. Could you reconsider the current status of the article? Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a second look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Many thanks for looking at it and reviewing the status. Hopefully things will calm down a little anyway. Regards, CarterBar (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RS

My friend, have you noticed the shit going on at RS? Again, people are coming up with completely novel policy advice and inserting it into RS, while circumventing V. I just removed a massive section. Something needs to be done about this page. Seriously. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Snowmobiler120

Please block the user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post some information and diffs at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection for AT&T/American Telephone & Telegraph/Bell System articles

The same IP user that has been disrupting the Verizon article has also been doing so to the AT&T, American Telephone & Telegraph, and Bell System articles. Several users have grown very frustrated with these edits, notably on the AT&T page, and I have been keeping guard on all of the articles to prevent disruption. Could there be a way to revert these articles back and protect them as well? KansasCity (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. All these articles and now semi-protected ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to counter this argument. The disruption that the above user mentions is not disruption at all. I and others feel our information is correct and we have had the information sourced by both AT&T's web site and other news articles on the web. He went to another admistrator with no luck and In guess he turned to you. The bottom line is that AT&T Corp is a legally functioning subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. The corporation was not dissolved and did not become defunct in 2005. So what is listed on the wikipedia page is in fact inaccurate. Thanks you for looking into thos matter. I refer you to the following link as evidence AT&T Corp is a legal subsidiary of AT&T. http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=7958 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.59.100 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly

Thank you for your invite to be a part of the Textual criticism FA drive. Alas, my workload is simply too burdensome at the moment for me to take on anything else. (The end of the school year means final exams and the grading of many essays.) If, in one month's time, you'd still like me to have a look, please let me know. Good luck with it! – Scartol • Tok 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Textual criticism

I'll not only copy-edit for you, I'll peer review. You asked the wrong man, or the right man, depending on how you look at it. Textual Criticism is a passion of mine. I'll try hard not to fight with you if I disagree about something. ;)

I've thought for some time the article needed more work. I'm very pressed for time at the moment, but I'll copy edit first, then make some peer reviewish comments, then hang around through the whole process. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, we have a common passion! I welcome your participation and look forward to the review and the copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i see too many supports and conflicts on PR page. Can you please give me some basic links, where i can start formatting the texts correctly? - Taxed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After this edit, the ref might now be in the wrong place. Would you be able to put it back in the right place (what exactly is the ref supporting there)? Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is OK there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	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, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Whigg

Please see Talk:Whigg --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Roleplay Online

Cheers for the helpful close on that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog... Could you give a hand? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry

When Will said you were holding me at a different standard then Momento, maybe I should not have asked for equal treatment. Maybe it would have been more diplomatic to hold off on that request for awhile. I am sorry if asking it so soon in our conversing put you on the defensive. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND ,WP:NPA, WP:BITE

Your behavior towards me has been out of line and we have been interacting for less then half a day!

In less then 8 hours or so you have:

listed my relatively minor errors,

offered the following "welcoming" message: [[13]

and lastly, for which I am warning you, you made a comment about cognitive capabilities: "I would argue that someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed." [[14]]

The truth is, I misspelled grammar once.

You saw that, implied I was incapable of spelling it correctly, and decided that because of this I need to be more cautious with more complicated undertakings. A very subtle, yet very clear PA, with superiority, all mixed into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohohahaha (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I realize that there has been A LOT of struggle and conflict over these pages. However, please don't take it out on me.

I am not new to wikipedia, however I am new to participating on these article, hence the reminder about wp:bite.

Please desist from focusing on me and/or little errors I make and instead, focus on what I have to say. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, Hohohahaha, please accept my apology. Let's move on, shall we? Restarting in a Tabula rassa, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology and I accept yours. I'm game to move on... and look forward to the challenge of re-entering with a beginner's mind. Hohohahaha (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ingraham high school

Why do you insist on undoing my edits of Ingraham high school. The candyman additions are vanity entrees by the person himself. The school is in the paper all the time for awards, etc. Why keep a flash in the pan incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.6.82 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the material you keep deleting is supported by sources that attest to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More Ingraham

The Seattle Times did a story on ducks that hatched in the court yard last year....Should we put in a 200 word paragraph about it?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.6.82 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Name change at Gandhi

Hi Jossi, Since you presided over the last exchange about the proper name for the page, I thought I'd alert you to the latest attempt at adding the honorific "Mahatma." A move back to Mahatma Gandhi is being plotted. The two main plotters—Nikkul (talk · contribs) and Beamathan (talk · contribs), whose pronouncements are increasingly sounding like Tweedledum and Tweedledee—are talking about moving the page regardless of the discussion, where the fabled consensus is eluding them. (See post1 and post2). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

Blurred Star Award for that elusive star.....Frustrating, ain't it? 'twas an ambitious project but Textual criticism is a great choice and a fascinating article. Sadly, I am no expert in the field. Nearly there.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Jossi, it did go to ANI. An extremely long thread there and repeated requests for independent review and use of the tools resulted in no block--not even a brief one. Toward the end of the thread I requested that if no admin was willing to block, at least please undelete the content RFC so that it could be restarted. David Gerard restored the RFC without blocking. Would you consider refactoring your RFAR statement in light of that? An unfamiliar reader could suppose you're chiding that I ought to have tried an option which I actually did pursue quite diligently. Durova^Charge! 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take a second look. Also, remember that there are many admins that are willing to make difficult blocks ... you may consider that option in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#Astrotheology 40kb and repeated requests for use of the tools went nowhere. I really am grateful that Moreschi blocked, and as soon as he did I offered to withdraw the RFAr. The block wasn't a difficult one in the sense most people use the term. The fellow was just unusually talented at blowing enough smoke that nobody wanted to intervene. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider MascotGuy article

FYI. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hey Jossi! I notice that you blocked Fovean Author for 48 hours. How about blocking some of the blatant POV pushers who are trying to whitewash the Obama article? Anyone who doesn't like what they're doing is accused of being a sockpuppet. I voted for the guy in the primaries and I've been repeatedly accused of being an "Obama hater." I'm just trying to create a balanced, NPOV article. Some admin help is needed here to get the Obama apologists under control. You may not like Fovean Author's rhetoric but he has a valid point about these people. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of dispute resolution? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
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) 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Kailash

Jossi,

I appreciate what you are doing to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, however I feel that including the part on Jainism and maybe even the Bon faith are unnecessary. If I am approaching this the wrong way, please take the correct actions for those pieces of information to be removed. It just seems as if with Jainism it has been forcefully put on there. Remember what is old is not always right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.168.246 (talk • contribs)

to me this is a pocket monster and i thought it was okay to post it so why do you feel differently http://www.forumspile.com/Goatse-TubGirl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.3.52 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Prop. 5

I thought we'd handled all of your issues. If there are others please use the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The issue is that Steve, the mediator, has requested to be the one to assess consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Studies of DLM

Hi Jossi. I noticed you dropped a bunch of names for people who have done studies on the talk page for Prop 5[15]. Conway, Flo & Siegelman, Downton, Barret...do you have more information (titles, pub dates, journal names) on these studies? I might be able to pull some of them and give a read, see if I can flesh out that section.

I'm particularly interested in studies that you feel would give balance to what's already there. You mentioned "others", so if you think of any more let me know, even if they're obscure. Anything I find I'd be happy to share with anyone who wants a copy.

Thanks Mael-Num (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The most extensive study is by Downton. The source is an entire book so I cannot share that... Other sources have been used in that proposal already. Comway and Seiegelman study is so poor and statistically meaningless that it is not worth discussing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you throw a few titles my way? The Dowton book is Sacred Journeys? Anything else? Even obscure stuff...I've got pretty good library access. Mael-Num (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See Sacred Journeys ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. And if you think of anything down the road, please don't hesitate to ask. I would like to help your side of the article out, if I can, to keep the playing field level; they have more hands and eyes to do research with. Mael-Num (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a quick question... Sacred Journeys redirects to Sacred Journeys (book). Would it be more in line with style to move the latter to the former? Mael-Num (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

The mediator, Steve Crossin, is the one who asked for the protection via IRC. I therefore protected it. --Chetblong (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed I did, sorry if you didn't know about it, Jossi. You can discuss this with me, I did however see than an edit was made without clear consensus. Now, normally, I wouldn't have an article protected in this instance, but further on in the case, more proposals will be created, and I feel that more edits like this will be made without clear consensus, and in the interest of the mediation and to prevent heated discussion from such edits, I requested protection. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to protect as there was no edit war, Steve. Will mad a mistake by implementing a proposal and I corrected it. I request that the article gets unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's no harm in protecting the article right now, since all involved editors should be working on the proposals over on Steve's talk page, this will prevent random drive-by's, or editors who just decide to abandon the process. Indeed, I think this should help focus the editors on the progress we are trying to make, as they will not have the recourse to go off on their own, ignoring the idea of consensus, which is what we're after here, right? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no harm, but there is no need. See WP:PROTECT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Checked the article page? I actually thought about the protection for a few hours, then, yes, I did have the page unprotected, an error of judgment on my part, and I do apologise. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh...arguably the harm is that it might discourage editors from participating. Editors walk away and forget to return. Even when the block is lifted, it can cause people to become "gun-shy", giving the impression that a small misstep might have major consequences.

In the future, maybe just implement a block on anonymous editors? All the regulars on these articles, I think, can be trusted not to do anything naughty. Just my two cents. Mael-Num (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I'm jealous

For all this time that I've known you, I only just now took a look at your artwork. They're very good, I'm very impressed. I've dabbled in oils, mostly landscapes and simple still compositions. I don't even attempt portraits. I wish I could even approach your level of skill. Are these oils, or digital? Do you touch up with digital tools? What technique did you use on "Woman4000x" and "Oluwa"? It looks like some kind of impasto. The same with "Stone"? I'd like to be able to tell you which is my favorite...I don't think I can pick.

These are fantastic. You should share more of these on your front page. I've asked a couple of folks on IRC and they said they haven't seen your work. They should, it's great. Mael-Num (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All digital. Using some techniques that I call "computer assisted painting". I use a pressure sensitive tablet and stylus, using a real photo as a reference, reducing it first it to a palette of 8 to 16 colors via vectorization, and then I trace it, using the trace as the starting point. An example of such step can be seen here [16] (click "full view" in the top left of screen). I then use a combination of tools: StudioArtist 3.0 (Mac only) and Painter for brushwork, and Photoshop for color correction. Example of final work: [17]. Oluva was done in StudioArtist that is an amazing (but quite complex) tool: http://www.synthetik.com/ . To tell you the truth, betwween work, family and Wikipedia, not much time left for these explorations! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that feeling, but looking at your work, I think it's high time I found time for more practice. Thanks, and hopefully you'll find some, too! Mael-Num (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Jossi, I've been asked if you have IRC, do you by any chance? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am logged in now. My nick is "jossi". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I frequent #wikipedia-en-admins as well as #wikimedia-otrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your nick? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My nick is SteveCrossin . I'm generally in #wikipedia-en, as I don't have access to the admin channel, well, not yet. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect Master

Hello Jossi, When you find time I'd like to discuss the Perfect Master dmg page with you. I know you have worked hard on it. Someone tagged the article as needing work and I think I see why. I don't know if Meher Baba coined the word "perfect master" but he is the only one that I can verify used this precise term. Dmg pages I think are for multiple occurances of the same term. The way the dmg page is now it is more like the reader is expected to assume to know the meaning of the term from its sound, and then procedes to point to a concept that parallels that idea best from several traditions. My proposal is for an improved version of the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) article to replace the current Perfect Master dmg page and then have a link to a literal dmg page like "Perfect Master (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. Please discuss. I don't want to do anything without your approval. But I see none of these other articles are really articles on that term. Also the PM Baba page could be improved to include other references besides Baba's use, but with the same connotation. So I'm saying replace "Perfect Master" with an article and have also a dmg page. Tommytocker (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

contributions

Hi, because of the global accounts, I changed my user name from User:BigDevil (talk) to User:BlueDevil (talk). Can you do something for my contributions? Thanks.--BlueDevil (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

God Speaks

Hi Jossi, you have marked God Speaks for third party sources. I haven't found any and I doubt any exist to the present moment. What I have done here is simply describe the contents of the book. There is not an inkling of opinion or point of view in it. I'm afraid the tag will accompany the article for long times to come, as I don't see what can be done about it. Hoverfish Talk 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am effectively banned

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are... what Vassyana is saying is: I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Muhammad_Nasiruddin_al-Albani

I made multiple, atomic edits, each with an edit summary. Check the page history. How does this constitute vandalism? To illustrate, in Al-Albani's bio: I removed the word important (which is hotly disputed), replaced the word prodigious with prolific (arguably a more neutral term), and removed his specialisation in fiqh (Al-Albani's education was predominantly in Hadith, as per the Wikipedia entry itself). Please explain how any of this is biased or vandalistic. If anyone is being biased, it is User:MezzoMezzo with his constant reverts of my edits. -- 05:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently, this anon also tried to add a reference based off of a website called marifah.net. I know that site well - it's highly sectarian and far from a reliable source. They also have a huge ax to grind regarding the guy this article is about. It would appear to be that this anon is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise the fact that he doesn't like this al-Albani person. Given that they almost immediately accused me of being biased simply for reverting their edits, I have a feeling this could slide into WP:DE territory. Just a heads up, i'll be watching this myself though you're in a better position than I to make a judgment call on this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

'Anon' here. I do not intend to engage in any disruptive edits. It is simply my desire for Al-Albani's page to maintain a more neutral tone. How can a figure as controversial as Al-Albani not have any criticism whatsoever? It is clear to even the most casual observer that MezzoMezzo and others are fighting to maintain a one-sided representation of the late Shaykh. I invite you to review the history of the page to see who is really on a soap box here. In any case, as a gesture of good will, I have removed the link to marifah.net, and I apologise for any indiscretions on my part. I have, however, kept the mention of the debate and the book, and I will continue to dispute this utterly biased farce of an entry. Please let me know if I make any mistakes as I proceed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.163.18 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Former 'Anon' here, I've just registered an account. If the delay was bad form, please accept my apologies. I'm still learning the ropes :) Thirteen36 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that this is destined to escalate. Jossi, I hate to bother you, but since you've already taken note of this disruptive pattern i've responded to the issues in question here on the article's talk page. It might help to resolve this quickly if you added your thoughts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	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) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ATT Question

Hi. You posed a question at the ATT discussion. Rather than troll the poll, I'd like to offer my answer here. I think that any time you summarize text, there is subjectivity in what is included, deleted, or clarified. Thus the result of a summary can be disputed as accurate, and the result rejected. Another issue is whether the summary is effective in adding clarity or brevity -- does it add value or just further instruction creep. I think that with the best of intentions we are developing too many conflicting and redundant instruction pages at WP. What do you think? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. I think that a summary can be done and is useful. Many editors think that just compling with the guideline of WP:RS is enough to add material to an article, when actually, you need in most cases to have attribution, as well as ensure that NPOV, and OR are also incorporated in editorial judgments. So I am for keeping that page as a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

[18] Interested? Jayen466 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Related: [19], [20] plus old discussion Might be good to establish consensus on this issue, one way or the other (though policy appears clear). Best, --Jayen466 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I had quite enough of that specific user's WP:OWN, personal attacks, and publicly stated biased attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RPJ blocks

Jossi, you recently made some blocks of alleged RPJ socks as logged here. I don't know whether or not they're socks, but RPJ's ban expired last year, so my reading of the case is that it shouldn't matter. Does their behavior merit one year blocks even independent of that ArbCom case? Mtracy9 is requesting to be unblocked.--chaser - t 10:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country‎

I discussed deletions. No answer because there isn't any. Material is innuendo and/or irrelevant to the article's title. Italy's material was on processing possible cases, not on cases themselves. Student7 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet, material seemed to be well sourced. May I suggest you get a few more eyeballs by asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Seeing's how you dealt with the last sockpuppetry flareup from the Barack Obama article, would you mind taking a look at this new discovery? Shem^(talk) 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look?

Hi Jossi - could you intervene here? Thanks Tvoz/talk 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I bet it would have been more enlightening to include the link... thanks Tvoz/talk 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And this background too: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership

I would like to "own" the article Copper Scroll. (Or have it owned by a similarly-minded editor). Here is my reason. After the initial thrill of finding it, researchers have been totally unable to discover what the heck the scroll refers to. Most likely they never will. True research, sensing a dead end, has stopped a long time ago. In retrospect, the poor folks copying it 2 millenia ago didn't really know either, but didn't want to jeopardize their heritage by not passing along what seemed like incredibly important information. The article is in pretty good shape, no thanks to me! It was pretty much that way when I found it.

The only changes that are made, unfortunately, are triggered by a rerun of a disreputable television program where pseudo professionals were paid to make outrageous speculation about the scroll, none of them substantiated by scholars. The reruns (when made) trigger a rash of "good-faith" but invariably spurious entries.

In the best of all possible worlds, the scroll should be permanently locked by an admin and opened only after someone convinced him that there was really something worthwhile to put in it.

Another way is to set it up for automatic (bot) revert for the article itself. The proposing editor could justify his reasons in the discussion, maybe convincing the "owner" that he had run across something really worthwhile.

I realize that this is a very unusual situtation. About the only one I have run across so far. Can this sort of thing be done? Student7 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really... This is a wiki-based encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What you can do is to ask for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

The sockpuppetry has been reported. It is an open-and-shut case since the style, wording, and processing of Davkal editing under this proxy is the same. Please see WP:3RR#Other exceptions. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reported, but not confirmed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say something rude here, but I won't. Jossi, if you have evidence that this is not Davkal, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to go on WP:3RR#Other exceptions and will continue to remove any shilling that you do for this user. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be tempted to say something you will regret, and don't be tempted to continue refactoring comments. You have filed an SSP report, let it run us course. And let an uninvolved admin to make that determination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag?

Hmm, what's wrong with my tag? (I made it today, BTW.) I rather liked it. Been needing one of those for policy pages for years. Could never find a good one, and everyone reverted saying such tags weren't intended for (fill in the page), so I made one. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba GA/FA info

see this--Nemonoman (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block of ScienceApologist

Hi Jossi. I wanted to mention that your block of ScienceApologist has a bad vibe to it. I'm not here to defend his behavior, but I am here to suggest to you that, based on your history with him, you should strongly consider asking another admin to step in when you think SA has earned a block, in the future. The bad blood between the two of you is longstanding, bilateral, and manifest. Obviously, things would be easier if SA would comport himself in a more amicable manner. I have no intention of addressing this particular block at AN/I or any other forum at this time; this is simply a courtesy notice and a request that you consider involving other admins in the future when you think SA has earned a block (even if you don't consider yourself involved). For the record, SA and I have not spoken at all about this - I reviewed both of your actions and came to this conclusion without outside input. Antelan^talk 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Antelan. At this point I do not think that there are any active admins that have not interacted one way or another with Science Apologist, and of those, very few are willing to call it when it is needed. I stand by the need for that block, and by its implementation. As with any other block, a blocked user is entitled to contest it, which Science Apologist did, only to be denied, so I do not see any issues here. FYI, I have nothing specific against this user, and certainly not "bad blood". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If what you claim about most other admins having run across SA is true, then my suggestion to you is only strengthened. Get uninvolved admins to participate. You may be speaking the truth when you say you have nothing against SA, but the perception is nevertheless out there, and not just because of SA's claims. With regards to behavioral issues such as these, such perceptions matter. By the way, my username is "Antelan", not "Anthelan". Antelan^talk 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot manage the perceptions of others, Antelan. I can only stay true to my understanding of the admin role, and my experience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, when I saw Jossi's block of SA show up at the 3RR noticeboard, I thought it was justified. The problem was that SA was removing a Talk comment. Until that point it had been unclear whether any admin action was appropriate. I won't argue that this is a big deal, I'm just stating that Jossi's action was reasonable under the circumstances. Yes, with infinite patience, Jossi could have waited for an uninvolved admin to deal with it (and if it were up to me, I suspect I would have tried some peacemaking techniques first). Editors like SA who are under extreme scrutiny probably shouldn't remove other people's Talk comments, ever. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to defend the block, but you should note that I warned the user three times before the block. Also to be noted, the user was edit-warring on the article itself as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm not asking you to defend this block; my rationale in messaging you here was always a forward-looking one. If you think you are both right and reasonable, then you should also trust that your peers will agree with your assessment of a situation. And here's another good reason to involve other admins: SA may respond better to them than he does to you, since he clearly thinks that you are an antagonist, even if you are not. In that sense, involving other admins may be a de-escalating action that you can take that will achieve the desired result without precipitating a block. Antelan^talk 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. But I would argue that at this point in time and given the contention around this user's behavior, walking on eggshells is not the appropriate response. On the contrary. The community has been incredibly accommodating of SA's behavior, and not calling it when it should be called, or being so cautious as to not respond directly seems to me to be an unnecessary formality at this stage. Rather than indulging in a discussion on what could be done so that this user is more receptive to administrative actions, what needs to be done is to help this user to understand that such behaviors are not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen! It's about time someone did the right thing on Wikipedia. Thank you Jossi. 66.240.236.36 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Removing the talk page comments, a User:Davkal-sock has made, looks perfectly reasonable to me. So I beg to differ. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Army "sanitisation"

It is being suggested on Talk:Jesus Army that the recent round of editing of Jesus Army in which you and User:Rumiton were involved amounted to no more than sanitisation. Perhaps you could advise? Also arising from the current discussion there, is there any rule which says that controversial matters have to be discussed before editing, or is it merely good sense to avoid edit wars? I would appreciate it if you could look by, and leave your comments. John Campbell (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a few edits a long time ago, or made some comments in talk, not sure, bot certainly not "involved" :). If there are editorial disputes, it is best to discuss rather then edit-war. That is obvious. Best would be to pursue WP:DR via RfCs or mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your advice at the time was very helpful! John Campbell (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC?

If you would be so kind, could you hop on IRC? Steve Crossin (contact) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
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) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

81.178.103.117

You left a block notice that gave no reason. He requested unblock. Yet the account has never been blocked, either directly or as part of an autoblock or rangeblock as far as I can tell. What's going on? I declined since you can't unblock someone who isn't blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That block is from 2007 ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. I think you should extend the protection on Fatimah because the dispute might last for a while because of its sensitive nature and some users might go ahead and remove the 12+ sources and replace the section with one that that fits their belief system. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I did discuss on the talk page a week or two ago and only got an incoherent reply: [21]. So I've started a new thread... please reply with something more than "unneeded" if you're going to revert me to keep this language out of the policy. --Rividian (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The response you got from The Transhumanist was spot on. You may want to ask for clarifications, if you think it was incoherent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

It was utterly pointless to me... can you explain it without talking about zen and other nonsense? I'm really supposed to leave inaccurate, unsourced content in articles to "achieve Wiki-Zen"? I seriously doubt that's what Jimbo intended with his quote in that section, which says "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." --Rividian (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at WT:V ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Jimbo's comment was specific to WP:BLPs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't... his comment says "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." So you're exactly wrong... if it was only about BLPs, he would have said it is "only true of negative information about living persons" --Rividian (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the quote. He refers to I heard it somewhere stuff. Is there anything in WP:V that does not allow you to challenge material and delete it if sources are not forthcoming? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The language "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" which was what I was trying to clarify. --Rividian (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for edit

I don't understand what you left on my talk page. I'm not a new editor, I just don't have a username as it is not required. You stated that my edit was not "constructive," but the reason for my edit was placed in the discussion page quite clearly. I consider removing unnecessary fluff to be rather constructive. Since you did not post a reason for keeping it, doesn't that make your change nonconstructive? I'm not interested in getting into an editing battle, because I really don't care that much, but please give a reason for keeping a section talking about parallels in a video game when it doesn't even pretend that Metropolis was an influence... wait! I got it, I will make a compromise. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fatimah

Please re-protect the article. User:Itaqallah went on and removed a large section using a dishonest edit summary. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

71.141.114.187

He's requesting unblock, and a couple of people at the talk page can't see what the vandalism is. Neither can I. Can you explain this? Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching, and so far as I can tell, the IP is quite right about the image in Radar (song) ... it's fan art, not an official cover, and doesn't belong in the article.
Kww (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. My mistake again... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm proposing to put you on trial for the Wikipedia crimes you perpetrated against me. I am giving you the chance now to do the right thing and resign as an administrator here on Wikipedia or alternatively promise not to use your administrative functions against me ever again. Just get an uninvolved administrator if you think my behavior warrants you behaving as police, judge, and executioner. I have started the process WP:ANI#Please tell Jossi to not deal with me. I can move forward with WP:RfArb if you'd prefer.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that, if SA is so upset about it, leave him alone. Ask another admin to look over it - there are eighteen hundred more. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello Jossi, you may recall you mistakenly blocked me from editing the other day, due to suspected vandalism. Thank you for subsequently unblocking me. I'm now asking if you can tell me how one goes about alerting or contacting a Wikipedia administrator of vandalism being done by another editor. Specifically, in this instance, IP 193.120.116.178 (please see my history for my reverts of vandalism by this user done today). As you will see, this user has a long history of vandalism, and I am concerned that this user will continue to vandalize Wikipedia. As such, in the future, I would like to be able to alert an administrator when this activity is taking place, if you can advise me of how to do this. Thank you in advance for your reply. 71.141.114.187 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Further . . . I had sent a message to this user stating "I have requested that you be permanently blocked from ever editing Wikipedia pages, due to your destructive and juvenile vandalism of pages. Until such time as you are permanently blocked, I will monitor each and every edit you make, and revert said edits unless you immediately provide verifiable reference source to justify your edits." This user has just left a message on my talk page as follows: My Worthy Foe - I accept your challenge. Give me a few moments and then the games will begin. 193.120.116.178 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC). 71.141.114.187 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You can place a report at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	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) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing in Tibetan Buddhism

Thanks for looking in on the article, Jossi. Please don't mind that I've restored the references to the places where they were before. The reason is that each one refers to a different word in the phrase. Two references each refer to specific words in the phrase. The references are the native language terms for each one and the words they refer to are the translations in English, which some scholars may not recognise if they use different sources. The references need to be in different places because the things they refer to are different. The third reference is to neither of them, but to the dichotomy of the two of them. I've reworded the phrase to try to make it a bit less confusing, but combining the references will only create more confusion.

So far, others seem to have gone along with this way of doing things. It was there like that for ages in material there that was just in note form. My recent change actually just amplified on those notes. If you're still unhappy, please post something in the Talk page. I am keen to find out how to improve the article.

Moonsell (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will reply there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [22].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [23].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Living People Patrol

In view of your edits to Wikipedia:Living People Patrol, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch. -- GregManninLB (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

I find it difficult to converse with you because you keep deleting my comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What are you blaming me for this time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So where did Current Biography Yearbook go? It appeared to me to have been deleted during the page and source shuffling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be implying you're going to lodge a 3RR violation report against me. Please note your own reverts:

• 15:37, July 5, 2008
• 19:50, July 5, 2008
• 20:01, July 5, 2008

• 01:41, July 7, 2008
• 12:07, July 7, 2008
• 12:09, July 7, 2008
• 12:11, July 7, 2008
• 12:11, July 7, 2008
• 12:28, July 7, 2008
• 19:40, July 7, 2008
• 19:42, July 7, 2008
• 19:44, July 7, 2008

That's not even a complete list. I suggest calling a truce rather than pursuing this through channels that could get you blocked as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These are not reverts, and you well know it. Please self revert ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mine weren't all reverts either. Let's just drop it and call a truce. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, you know that you f**ed up there. You know that you claimed I am edit warring, while you were doing the same and WP:OWN that page. And now you call for a truce? OK, fair. Then please self revert and leave at least the section names as of my last edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and calm down. I'm perfectly willing to allow neutral section headings. Do you reject a truce? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That fight over there got on my nerves, granted. Sure, I am for a truce: Simply add to the section names the number of sources and their provenance, as in "1972-1975 38 press sources, one book" and so on. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If we know for sure what the "provenance" of the source is then we could, though I don't see the point. However not all authors of books are scholars. If you wanted to distinguish books from preiodicals that could be done with some neutrality, though note that some scholars publish in periodicals, while some journalists write books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Thank you for your instructions re: re-insertion of relevant source material that had been removed from the Joseph Smith children page during what is correctly characterized as an edit war. I'm sorry to need additional assistance, but could you please further explain the process I need to follow? Thank you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please become familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. You have there all the guidance needed to get help from the community to resolve content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be new but..

I tried to site good sources. Trust me they are there. Maybe a little help here would be in order. I noticed that my links went elsewhere. The facts are solid and so are the references. Maybe I should specify better? I'm learning here.Bitchen b (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the google results for Slyvia Browne show that Mr. Lancaster's page ranks just above the Wikipedia page and just below Browne's own page. Bitchen b (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOURCES ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being talked about

Here. My spiritual master didn't like hypocrisy or backbiting. You're in the plus-side on both counts, and I'm trying to stay there -- or may be get there -- myself. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fatimah

Hi Jossi, I wanted to bring my earlier proposition to your attention regarding dispute resolution on the Fatimah article.[24] ITAQALLAH 11:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Do you think commetns like this are helpful and civil?

• When did you made any useful comments and proposals? Last time you did any research?. Zero so far.

Please remembver that civility is a requirement, not an opition, and that this topic is on ArbCom probation. Comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Facts are facts and have nothing to do with civility or lack of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If this is the way that you think incivility should be responded to then why do you want me to bother posting a complaint about incivility on another user's talk page? Or is it that incivility from you doesn't matter while incivility by others should result in penalties? Please explain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • My comment was not uncivil. I stated a fact: a person has not contributed any proposals or made any research. OTHO, telling an editor that he/she may be suffering cognitive dissonance, is a personal attack. I am surprised that you do not see the difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, so if the other user says that he was simply stating facts then it's OK to be uncivil? Why make a point about research - is there a lack of research on this topic? What was your reason for asserting that another user hadn't added any research to the topic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor, Will, and check the contrib list of this user and tell me if what I said is not a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• That wasn't my question. Why did you feel the need to state this "fact"? What purpose did your comment serve? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Because this person is not being helpful in any way or manner to this project. Sitting on the fence and making flippant comments about editors that are working hard thorough a difficult mediation, is trolling. Just check this person contrib;s list and take a cursory look at his/her edit summaries and "contributions". Trolling indeed.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So, in your opinion, condemning a person for not being helpful isn't uncivil? It's OK when folks complain about other users, so long as it's arguably factual? But if that's your standard then I guess we're all free to comment on the contributions, helpfulness, and tone of other users without it counting as incivility. Too bad that Wikipedia policy sets a different standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • What is, Will, in your opinion the purpose of this project? Maybe when you think about your answer, you may find some understanding of my position. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • FYI, I have asked this user several times to make useful contributions, to roll his sleeves as others are doing, etc. But it seems that he/she is not interested at all. So, yes, sometimes we come across users that are not willing to learn or to change their ways, and in these cases calling a spade a spade, is appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • And you're OK with the same "call a spade a spade" standard in regards to your own participation on Wikipedia? If users have asked you to do something several times and you haven't changed your ways then it's OK to make remarks about your failure to meet their expectations? If not, then what's the difference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you two considered mediation? It may yet prove useful. Antelan^talk 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Antelan for the suggestion. But we are already in a content dispute mediation which is the one that is creating he friction you are observing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, understood. Best of luck to the two of you. Antelan^talk 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions as to help reduce the friction between me and Will, I would be very interested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion candidate?

Please see Ram Bagh, Agra, created today, and compare to Ram Bagh. Not sure how the process works.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• never mind, I did a redirect. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Your message to me [25] asks about the reasons. But in each case reason is different and each of them is stated in the particular case. Thank you for you concern. Maybe you can express your views individually in each case? That would be the norm. Wikidās ॐ 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an inclusionist, but it seems that a deletion drive is a bit much. Rather than AfD a ton of articles, maybe tagging them first and allowing other to the some research (or doing some research yourself) would be a better way to improve the pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I only afd'd only like 3 or 4 this month. Like Kaupina for example. Wikidās ॐ 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris. I believe that a short article on the political use of the term apartheid is worth having. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a point, Jossi, but don't you think that would be better incorporated into Apartheid rather than standing on its own? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... That article is about the South African regime. An article about the use of "apartheid" as an argument in political discourse, is different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Jossi, hi, I wanted to alert you to the fact that there are currently Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing that have been placed on the Quackwatch article. One of the conditions is 0RR, no reverts. When you made this edit,[26] it was obviously a wholesale restoral of information from your July 10 edit.[27] What would have been better, would have been to change the information somewhat, to try and address concerns and find a compromise version. You also deleted some {{check}} templates that had been placed on sources, without actually addressing the concerns.

At this point, I want to assume good faith, that you simply were not aware of the new 0RR restriction. But for further changes, please be more careful? Thanks, Elonka 03:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
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) 09:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Contrary to Wiki policy against harassment (Posting another person's personal information is harassment) John Brauns continues to use "Derek" when referring to me. I have removed the references twice and WillBeback once [28] [29][30]and asked Brauns to stop doing it [31][32]. But he continues to do it [33]. Brauns has already threatened to blackmail people on Wiki [34]so this harassment is serious, deliberate and sustained. I expect the admins involved in this discussion Will, Steve and Jossi to ban Brauns indefinitely, if not permanently.Momento (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Jossi, I'm hoping you could extend the protection on Fatimah until mediation is over and until we solve the dispute. Regards, Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New Afds

• Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing warnings

Hi, I just noticed you are reverting user:ChRis's removal of warnings on his page. Just so you know, users are allowed to remove warnings whenever they want (it's their talk page), and it is considered as a sign that they have read (and understood) them. Cheers, BalkanFever 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can, but some of these are quite fresh. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By "fresh" do you mean from this month? I find page blanking annoying too, but it's still their decision. Also, the last one is just a light vandalism warning. If there were more serious warnings, maybe there would be another way to go about it, but not this situation. BalkanFever 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hear you... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion spree - needs corrective action

Hi Jossi. Two editors, Wikidas (talk · contribs) and Ism_schism (talk · contribs) have gone on a nominating-articles-for-deletion spree. They are nominating some obviously notable and well-referenced articles. They are workling in tandem and voting on each other's nominations. Can you take a look whether what they are doing is kosher? They seem to be concentrating on New Age figures for some reason. I say the articles should be speedily kept. — goethean ॐ 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT - I agree that something should be done about these two. They seem to be working together to delete any articles about Hinduism that are not related to the ISKON cult and have started a wiki project with that goal in mind. Something should be done about these two characters. Instead of tagging content which needs to be improved for better articles, they are running rampant tagging articles for deletion and wasting the time of many people who are slowly but surely working to make Wikipedia the best online information resource available on the web. Below are recent posts from the "non notable hindu gurus and ashrams":

• Comment Last week, I listed articles for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. In particular, I have looked for references for Bihariji Maharaj, Prabhu Jagatbandhu Sundar, Sindhi festivals and Swami Shankarananda Giri. To date, I have not found any. If anyone has any reliable sources or comments, please feel free to share or edit the articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC

• Comment I listed more articles for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. Please review these articles and their discussion as many articles have had no comments for a week. I appreciate any comments or feedback. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note Four new Afds have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Four new Afds have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. They are; I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Navnath Sampradaya, Navnath, and Shri Madhavnath Maharaj. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Six new Afds have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These are; Siddharam, Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai, Siddharudh Swami, Swami Pranavananda, Ma Jaya, and David Godman. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Six new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These articles are; Lisa M. Wolfe, Tirtha and Kshetra, Shivom Tirth, Swami Vishnu Tirtha, Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan and Yoga Shri Pith. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Six new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism. These articles are; Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas, Dileepji, Advance Party (religious movement), Oneness University, Oneness Blessing, and Kalki Bhagavan. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The shear number of Afds that these guys are generating clearly show that there is some agenda at work here other than improving Wikipedia. They don't even make any positive comments, they only keep saying "delete-non notable." Posted by Ram.samartha (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even an editor on his eighth contribution can see that! Wow. — goethean ॐ 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Emancipation of Minors

Hi Jossi. For the United States, the question of whether or not an emancipated minor can get married without court or parent approval is based on the laws of the state where the minor resides. Some states do not allow an emancipated minor to get married without permission from the court or parent, whereas states that consider marriage to be a 'binding contract' allow it.

A US court decree to become emancipated usually requires parental consent, depending on the state. Some states could grant emancipation on the grounds that a teen wants to get married, and is eligible to do so (under that state's laws), but requires parental consent that they cannot obtain. If a teen wants to be emancipated, they have to petition a local county clerk's office to begin the legal process. Most states require proof that the teen is financially viable, proof of residence, as well as the ability to pay the fees and court costs associated with the state's emancipation petition. If getting married is the motivation behind the emancipation petition, the court would weigh the above along with the minor's demeanor, emotional state and maturity level.

In the US, emancipated minors cannot drink or vote if under the legal age to do so. Some of the rights obtained via emancipation (again depending on the state) are related to property, banking, contracts, consent and personal control (where to live, go to school, etc.).

I hope that helps - if you need info for Canada, let me know.

Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(my response to Will Beback re: his question on my talk page)

Will, even if this is a chicken and egg thing, there is still the interesting premise within Colorado's higher education guidelines, fostered by the Colorado Legislative Council in 1972, stating that "the marriage of a minor results in his emancipation." [35] As an example of this put into practice, one finds Colorado State Statues Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes Title 23, Article 7, Section 103 Presumptions and rules for determination of status, (2)(j): "The marriage of a minor results in his emancipation."[36]

Although there doesn't appear to be a statutorily defined emancipation process in Colorado, I personally think Colorado Code 19-1-103 (Definitions) speaks volumes: "The term may include...any such juvenile...who is married". So that, coupled with the rules within Colorado education, would lead to the conclusion that a minor who is married is thereby considered by the State of Colorado to be emancipated. The quote from 1974 does not appear to state that the minor had to go through a petition to grant emancipation first; merely that the minor obtained a court order to allow marriage. That court order may indeed have included whatever persuasive arguments and evidence needed for the minor to secure a positive outcome from the judge - but that doesn't constitute an emancipation proclamation, especially in a state without a defined process. I would therefore conclude that your take on this is correct.

Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD vandalism

I left a warning, but one from you might be more effective. User:Ram.samartha‎ has been editing and deleting comments by other editors.
Kww (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on this exchange, it's obvious that a warning from a third party is necessary.
Kww (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

80 in Ireland

Following your no consensus closure of the above. I followed your advice and undertook the merge that you recommended (as I had suggested). Should a note of this be added to the AFD page? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello. Can I ask you for some assistance. The problem I have can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Legal_threat

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreaciated. Thanks. NeuGye (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	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) 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish-language article

Hey, Jossi, I may need some help on an article, but I first I have some basic questions. The Miami Herald doesn't maintain archives after (I think?) seven days, so I've learned to add a quote to the footnote whenever I cite them, because the link will go dead in a week. A new user is removing text cited to the Herald and others, because the links are dead. That's no problem; I have the quotes, and the information was also extensively cited in Spanish-language reliable sources (Clarin, La Nacion, El Universal, etc), so I can re-cite any dead links to multiple other sources (but the only English-language sources is The Miami Herald quote I included long ago ... Spanish sources say the same thing). My bigger question is about privacy and COI on the editor removing the text. This editor appears to have registered with a real name, and google turns up an Argentine-Venezuelan living in Miami and ... here's the rub ... working for a firm where his job may be to scrub this article of reliably-sourced info for clients. If the editor name being used can be linked via google to a COI, am I allowed to bring up the (same, real life) editor name at the COI noticeboard? Or, how should I handle this? I haven't re-instated the text yet, since I'm not sure how to handle the possible editor COI, but all of the text can be easily cited to live Spanish-language reliable sources, and the quote from the Miami Herald. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not force us to provide an online link. All you need for verifiability is the date and page number of the newspaper in which the articles where published. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks Jossi. I started an AN/I thread, but ... <shrug> ... no one cared ... so I guess it wasn't viewed as much of a problem. In the meantime, I uncovered a whole lot more English-language sources, and the entire article really needs to be rewritten if I ever find the time. Titoxd also viewed the Spanish-language sources and weighed in that the text accurately reflected the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. If you need any help with this, please drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

issue with your edit to guide for the perplexed

--Lion for truth (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC) just because the information is helpful doesn't mean it should be on the page. You should move it to a different page

thank you for your help Lion for truth (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Barr

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mark Barr, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (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.

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PCPP

This user whose block you extended is currently requesting unblocking (or I think actually a reduction back to the original block). Any comment would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Luna. Go ahead and take a look... In my view the user has busted the line set in the ArbCom case. If you see that it would be best to reduce, please do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Roleplay Online

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Roleplay Online. 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. Banaticus (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiJob

Thanks for re-instating WikiJob article page! ..the www.wikijob.co.uk link seems to still be blacklisted - could this be removed?86.0.221.59 (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Final steps on Category for For Discussion/Deletion People who have been considered avatars

Hi Jossi: Can you have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_4#People_who_have_been_considered_avatars here?] I started the discussion recommending deletion, but I believe the consensus has gone against this, instead looking for rename to 'People considered avatars by their followers'. I'm new to this action, and I believe an admin must do final steps like closing the discussion and handling the rename. If my understanding is right, could you please do the honors. If I have misread and it's up to me, can you please let me know. Thanks --nemonoman (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

hello Nemonoman. Don't worry, there are many admins that monitor the Categories for Deletion pages, and one will eventually come alomg to close it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

consensus

can I get more specific feedback on what you objected to in this edit here to wp:consensus? the second paragraph is a bit radical, maybe, but the first seems to just to be a necessary clarification of what was there (I mean, it seemed odd to me to have an article on consensus that doesn't actually define what consensus is). I'm happy to take it up on the talk page, or make a new revision if it's simple enough, but either way I need a clearer idea of what your seeing that I'm not. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is best to be had at WT:CONSENSUS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

okie dokie.  :-) --Ludwigs2 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
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) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

edit

Please check the discussion about this tag, there is support for it, wikipedia is not POV. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

About half of those people I contacted were random peer review volunteers, the others were random users that were editing political articles. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been edit warring on Barack Obama related articles. Warnings have been placed in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a formal note that you're close to being blocked as well based on 3RR. If you actually feel that the other edit is disruption then request page protection. Wizardman 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed to being blocked by thwarting an obvious disruption? I know the rules, Wizarman... Check that user's contrib list, and the possible SP account following through≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an article as highly trafficked as Barack Obama, and in particular today, should be monitored closely for disruption and not fully protected. That is what I have done. Any issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edit. I'm just saying, edit-warring is edit-warring. Granted, I'm sure you do know that, this message was admittedly more bureaucratic than anything else. I don't plan to block anyone since I'd rather not get involved in the matter. Wizardman 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not "involved" until I intervened. I am filing a SSP report on these users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Underoath

Jerry teps asked that page be unprotected. You had protected it on Aug. 18, for 10 days. Since it was going to expire anyways, I decided to unprotect it early, as it was a simple semi-protect to stop IP vandalism. Hope you don't mind, Maxim (☎) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Why did you make this page redirect to Sarah Palin. It contains considerable information not found on that page and the consensus is clearly against a merger? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is duplicated info. To do a spinoff article, see WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism on Sarah Palin article

On my talk page, you accuse me of vandalism. Please explain. I had deleted a paragraph about Ted Stevens' 527 group in the Sarah Palin article because this same info was duplicated in the subsequent section, two paragraphs down. I explained in my edit that I deleted the paragraph because it was "redundant". Also, it seemed not to be relevant to her job as "Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner", which is the section I removed it from.

I think the vandalism charge is serious and hope that this is the result of a misunderstanding. In this case, it's also somewhat baffling since I wrote most of the info in the Sarah Palin article about the relationship between Stevens and Palin, and, although I did not originate this particular piece, I simply incorporated into the rest of the Ted Stevens section. Tsunado (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I will remove the warning. False positives do happen, my apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Accidental?

Hi Jossi. In this edit of yours, did you mean to revert the edits in the section on the Dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner? Or was that an unintentional byproduct? It seems to me that we don't have to name so many people (e.g. McCann and Colberg) in that summary section. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, edits are so rapid there that I reverted your name additions in the shuffle... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was just wondering. It's quite the wild west over there. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

You are probably not aware of it, but the protection was discussed on AN and there was consensus to full protect. Can you please undo your semi and join the discussion? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for someone to undo your unilateral and against-wide consensus unprotection of Palin on AN. Sorry. You can't do that and have it stick, no one admin can override consensus with tools. Buttons don't give extra authority and other admins had also supported protection. rootology (C)(T) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A short discussion does not mean consensus. Get consensus first, then protect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection restored

I've restored the protection for the moment, because there was a clear consensus, and good rationale, for doing so. I think we need to discuss over at AN if you still think full protection is unnecessary Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for protection and a short discussion is not consensus. Will take that discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will WP:IAR and unprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I have no intention of undoing that action. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I will get blasted from undoing your protection, but so be it. Sometimes, once in a while, the need fotr WP:IAR emerges. This is one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta do what you gotta do - no ill-feeling from me :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi,

Please reconsider. WP:IAR should not be used in cases where there’s currently a clear consensus of good faith, intelligent editors against your position, and even worse, where there’s already a recent history of alternating admin actions. I just don’t see how this can possibly be anything but a wheel war. “Repeating an admin action when you know others disagree”. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that you might be wrong about this. What are we supposed to do? If there’s already been a long discussion, with about 14 editors in favor of full protection for 48 hours or more, do we have to restart the discussion because you disagree? Do we quite simply have to bow to your opinion because you’re willing to wheel war and others aren’t? How can we function if you’re going to claim “IAR” when consensus is clearly against you?

The system we’ve got only works when we respect consensus. If we all start wheel warring when we “know we’re right”, then we’re screwed. Convince other people first, then act. "Being right" should no more be a defense than it is in a content-dispute edit war.

Please restore full protection, per consensus, and if consensus changes later, then change it. Please. --barneca (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jossi, I think this might be a time to hold back a little. My reading of consensus is that the page should be protected for now. Instead of warring over this, perhaps you can pitch in and help out with edit requests? Ronnotel (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A sad day for WP, when we cannot afford people to edit articles such as this one because of disruption. Discussion is now at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of a more private note, I think you meant contesting not contending on the AE discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, when an admin fully protects an article, please discuss it with him/her first before reverting the action. Then, don't wheel-war. Not doing this is disruptive to the community and a misuse of admin tools. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, retracting, I didn't know an RfAR case was already being opened to examine your actions. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be petty, but did you get consensus for changing the template from banner to padlock? It was discussed on the talk page and consensus if any was for no change [37]. I don't have a strong opinion either way but i do think it dispiriting when admins flaunt an ability to edit according to their best judgement when no one else is afforded that opportunity. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RFARB#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.285.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would call your attention Talk:Sarah_Palin#Protection_Template.2C_again. We've already had two discussions about the template and neither produced a consensus to minimize it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Err NYB is welcome to use the talk page on this trivial issue like any other editor. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And you are welcome to sign-in. Please take it to talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Windows_XP#Third_opinion

Would you be so kind as to check the above talk page? My questions are languishing and I'd like to bring the issue to a close if possible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Leaving a message to inform you Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride, which may concern you. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

I think it would be best if you step away from editing that article if you're going to make edits that do not reflect a consensus. I know I know, something as simple as this shouldn't really require a huge debate, but, there have been two discussions about it already, both of which resulted in leaving the large tag - so what you did was against a consensus. I'm sure you want to avoid any drama you can, and being a party in an Arbitration case probably doesn't sound the greatest to you. As a side note, I think the small one is best, but being bold on that article isn't going to help things. Not now, anyways. Just a friendly suggestion; feel free to just ignore me. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good thing to avoid making claiming of consensus when there is none yet. See: Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly - there is no consensus (and there was not one when you made the change). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus about the protection that started this whole drama. So the point about the tag is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you stay away from all Palin articles for a few weeks? (if not all protection discussions?) Your actions in this area (amongst others) led to one ArbCom case already, this is just making things worse, really. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to listen and rush pell-mell into disaster, at least I did my part to hold up a stop sign. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You see ... you are starting from the premise that I was mistaken in invoking WP:IAR and I still believe that it was necessary. Obviously, I will not do that again, given the drama this has generated. But to ask me to sit still and allow a procedural mistake of massive proportions such as invoking the Footnote arbCom ruling to protect that page, will not do, sorr. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

As one of the administrators who has previously deleted Welsh Foundation, please see the DRV request at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8, which I have listed on behalf of another editor, who had mucked up their list attempt. This is a courtesy notice only, and I have no opinion on the matter. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

You should be kept aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrative_action_review:_Tznkai --Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR diffs please?--Tznkai (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See this ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've declined that one, for three reasons, in order of importance.

1. As I noted on WP:AN/3RR there is a distinct lack of consensus. Aside from genuinely not wishing to act against consensus, I have no intention of starting a wheel war.

2. When in doubt, I do not block: Kelly seems responsive to my comments without me having to use admin tools, at least thus far.

3. Mootness: I'd prefer to watch recent edits. Basically, since my re protection of the page, has someone reverted? If so, they will be warned, unless the action was egregious, and then blocked on further action. So, if Kelly has tripped over 3RR since this morning eastern time, Let me know.

I hope you trust me on this, but I do intend to enforce 3RR, but I prefer to use other resolution when it seems to be working, however slowly, as there is a lack of egregious harm.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. NP. Just keep and eye, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing.--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

citation formatting

Hi Jossi, I would like to convert the references in the Sahaj Marg page to a format where they're not listed separately each time they're cited as a source in the text. I've found this but am very confused about how to use it. Do I just insert the bracketed "cite book" or "cite journal" in the article, save, and then go back in and fill in the blanks? What happens when I come to the second time the same book or article is used? What do I put then? Thanks. Renee (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Create a section called "References" and list there all the sources using {{cite}}, one per source. Then create a section called "Notes" in which you would place the {{reflist}}. Then simply use ref tags in the paragraphs <ref> last name of author, (Year of publication): page number. See an example at Textual criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- much appreciated. Renee (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record

I understand you will not think this was the ideal solution, but as 1) there was at best no consensus on the talk page as to this content's appropriateness on the political position page; 2) a gesture of good faith per your request, I made this edit on her main talk page. Per there being no deadline, I imagine sources will be found which would make this material fit back on the position page, and then it can be consolidated in a way agreeable to all. Thanks for considering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Kelly's talk page

Not helping, borderline baiting. Let Kelly save some face please.--Tznkai (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you and self-revereted. But what is obvious, is obvious. She/he has accused long-term ad well established editors in a manner that is quite inappropriate. If I was not involved in editing these articles, I would not be so lenient as you have been. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're an entrenched editor on the Sarah Palin article, and, as such, it would be best to withhold your opinions on how other administrators should handle situations involving your fellow editors. Saying you would not have been "so lenient" as an administrator against an editor that has been involved in disputes with you further muddies what should be a much clearer line between your editing and your administrating, especially given the significant controversy and challenging environment surrounding that article.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, for what it's worth, I sympathize with some of your thoughts on the Sarah Palin page. As you know, I made one contribution to the page based on LexisNexis and Factiva research results of multiple reliable sources verifying information and it was disregarded because some editors felt it was "not notable" -- apparently, The Washington Post, NPR, and other major news sources disagreed with their judgment but that didn't give anyone pause. Meanwhile, it seems that a handful of editors have discovered the power of WP:CONSENSUS to circumvent WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V -- not to mention widely accepted guidelines like WP:RS. I'm disappointed with some of the unhelpful comments and decisions that were made on that talk page. WP:BLP, for example, was never intended to be used for political purposes to remove inconveniently sourced facts. It was a policy established to remove clear cases of libel (rare as they may be to prove), unsourced malicious comments, and harm to innocent third-parties too young to defend themselves. In any case, you have at least the respect of one other editor on Wikipedia. As for me, I'm going to stay away from the page for a while. Keep up the good work. It doesn't go unnoticed. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I encourage you to continue the good work you have been doing. Wikipedia needs to have accurate, timely, interesting, informative, well researched and documented material in its articles not locked up on its talk pages.Rktect (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

woof woof. I can't believe this ID Cabal crap. Apparently, the new method of attacking an editor is to accuse them of being part of a cabal. Well, I'm proud to be in the Wikipedia project with you. Otherwise. Yawn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people see ghosts anywhere :) If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Semipro

Has there been an incident? If not, leave it be until it is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

I had to remove your oppose (and the related conversation) from the history. Please feel free to insert a refactored oppose on this RfA. Please do not take this personally - I am not doing this to discount your oppose on this RfA. Thanks for your understanding and apologies for the inconvenience. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted talk page - The deletion log appears to show that this talk page was deleted in 2007. The history of the page starts abruptly in 2007. Am I reading those logs incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My name change, if my memory serves me well, was on Dec 2005. The deletion by Pilotguy may have been related to some personal information being disclosed there, I don't recall the circumstances but by the edit summary of Pilotguy it seems he wanted to oversight something. As for Cirt's situation, I certainly hope that he will do OK with the tools and not go back to the previous patterns and I hope that my oppose will be on the record as a reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But to get back to the question, you said I was wrong and that this talk page was not deleted. The evidence appears to show that it was deleted. Can you explain why you think this page was never deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the log and if you still don't get it, I cannot help you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any problem with restoring the edits that you say weren't deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Maybe Pilotguy will remember what happened then. The only concern is the oversight he mentions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall now... I think that Drini posted private information by mistake on my talk page after trying to get a cloak account for IRC, and Pilotguy deleted the page.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you like, I can restore the bulk of the edits skipping over the private information bit. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we all agree now that the talk page was, in fact, deleted in 2007? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not by me, and not by my request. Now, if you don;t mind... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll go back and correct the record at the RFA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I voted in opposition based on my own observations/experiences of Cirt and their previous incarnation/s. In my opposition, I cited some of the concerns that you raised on the RFA page. I just went back to comment on Durova's comment and saw this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCirt&diff=237409242&oldid=237409058. It really heightens the concerns I expressed in my opposition. You are an admin. I think that this should really be looked into especially when you consider some of the ways that Durova's edit interests parallel Cirt/Smeelgova. I strongly request that Wikipedia look at this closer. Ebay3 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to answer your questions about edit interests. Cirt and I conominated Portal:Textile arts for featured candidacy earlier this year. We also collaborated on the feminism portal, which is currently in portal peer review, and we're collaborating on the Finger Lakes portal. Cirt also assists reviewing triple crown nominations. I doubt any of that is cause for concern, but if you have other questions please do ask. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PNT

Hello Jossi. I noticed you are a native speaker of Spanish; would you be able to translate some of the pages at WP:PNT? And since you're an admin you'd be able to delete anything you recognise as spam or non-notable. Regards, BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not written in Spanish for many, many years... so I am a bit rusty to take on this. But I can still take a look and remove NN material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But you can still read it, right? IT's just translation from Spanish into English. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
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) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Alternative medicine

A tag has been placed on Template:Alternative medicine 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) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image movement within Sarah Palin

I have noticed that you have repeatedly moved the image located within Sarah Palin#Personal life in a manner that violates Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Most specifically, you have moved the image so that everyone in the image is "facing away" from the article text. For more information on proper image placement please see MOS:IMAGES and Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images. --Allen3 ^talk 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that in my last edit there. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

palin religion info

Jossi, as I have stated at talk, I think that whole final section is superfluous and should be synthesized into the main article. However, putting that aside, I note the religion info you have just been editing is duplicated in "personal life" and "religious background." Would you consider deleting one? I'd do it, but I have been chastisted once today for removing it (on different grounds). Let me know. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss in talk. I may have added dup material mistakenly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I replied at talk - the whole para is in there twice. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I note that you're making edits on the religion section of the Palin article. These seem like good ones. A few suggestions: 1. there should be a citation for the claim that the churches she attended support dispensationalism (the citation at the end of the sentence seems to suggest only that such a belief can influence one's policy views). I don't personally doubt this fact, just that someone is bound to come along and challenge it at some point. 2. Dispensationalism, or at least what I have learned from a brief reading on the Wikipedia article describing it, has 3 central features: a. belief in a literal reading of the bible; b. the sole election of believers to heaven on the day of judgement (I think that is what it is saying -- it is rather arcane to me as an unbeliever); and c. something to do with conversion of the Jews into 'believers' (?). In any event, just noting these things for you. Since you're working on the section, I won't touch it so as not to interfere with your edits. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please... go ahead and tweak as needed. I was just citing what the sources said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Hey -- I put that stuff back in the religion section. The information was more detailed that the brief sumamry in the personal section. There is a discussion (I think you commented) about removal of the religion section -- let's wait for the outcome before removing the material though, okay? Atom (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy does it

You seem to be attacking me.[38] The concerns I have raised are bona fide, I am going through proper channels, and I am in contact with Rlevse. He would surely tell me to back off if I was causing a problem. Feel free to address your concerns to him. Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, Jeochman. I have expressed my concerns in talk, and other users, including recent participants have expressed similar concerns. The "proper channels" is to leave this RFA to continue without any further comments on participants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please don't comment on me further. I have no need to comment further at the RFA. I will take my concerns directly to WP:RFCU, WP:SSP or WP:BN if required. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problems. Postiing on these boards is a much better way to go about it. Thanks, Jeochman. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Rlevse#RFA — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll do fine.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rad edit

Takes the cake. The fact that the picture was on Commons since February is mind-boggling stuff. XF Law (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I was as surprised... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...[39] Durova^Charge! 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ahem... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How'd you find that old thing? Durova^Charge! 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - OR

Hi Jossi, Could you please review my comments here: [[40]] and revise if you agree. Thanks, IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for this remark [41]. It wasn't a helpful thing to say or ask. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it and thank you for refactoring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
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) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussions at Talk:Quackwatch

Otherwise, your recent edits look too similar to the recent edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited that article for a while. I restored material sourced to a WP:RS and did a cosmetic change to the a section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you're getting up to speed now on what's been going on. Thanks for helping out with the article! --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this edit is justified? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Refactoring

I would've voted for refactoring it, though the alternative: putting a hab/hat on that particular bit of commentary is worthwhile too (given that either party didn't actually withdraw it). What do you think? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would simply close that discussion. If at all, we have a pretty upset user that is at the brink of getting himself in more trouble than already is. And we have a respected admin on the other hand, that is willing to discuss in his talk page. I would say close the discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They ended up discussing it on FayssalF's talk page, and I think it's resolved there. Ended up habbing the particular bit of commentary, then closing. Hopefully that's that. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin2

Jossi, is there some reason why the phrase "virtually every media group in the US" should be in the Sarah Palin article twice?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello? That phrase was already in there when you added it a second time, Jossi.[42] Any chance you might be willing to revert?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone else finally fixed it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems at Ramakrishna

Hi Jossi, please see here. I am going to revert the last month's worth of edits to the Ramakrishna article because all references to the most notable academic studies of the past 30 years have been deleted from the biography section. I would really appreciate any guidance that you can offer. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there, and it is in my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A user NVineeth is POVing on Ramakrishna and Keshub Chunder Sen and undoing some of my effort to insert quotes from Romain Rolland's biased (1929) book. I am not expert on wiki mediation so dont know what to do about this. 65.49.14.82 (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please...

Don't go to Kelly's page again for now. Things are just calming down and we don't need a gust hitting an ember and causing ANOTHER conflagration.. Let it be... SirFozzie (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it, thanks. But there is a limit on how much abuse an editor can assert on others, don't you think? Why are editors defending such appalling behavior? Why the silk-glove treatment? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some who say the same thing of you, man (someone just brought it up on ANI, which I'm TRYING to shut it down). But let's let it die. Both ways. Enough is enough. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see.... Some people are just... Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Schweitzer

Why did you lock Brian Schweitzer's Wiki Page. We were having discussion regarding the controversy section to come to an agreement. This is a very important part of his Governorship and it could define his history and hand print on the state. Please allow at least a knocked down version with links to all the info regarding this issue. Also there was a 2006 lawsuit filed regarding this issue that should be able to be posted as well, and some of his statements match up to the lawsuit that was filed. Help2008Montana (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was semi protected for seven days per this request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I just found out that the discussion section on Brian Schweitzer's Wiki page was removed also. Please resolve this problem. Also the following is who took the controversy section down, she is the governors press secretary http://www.greatfallstribune.com Help2008Montana (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, are you going to remove the protection from Brian Schweitzer? Currently its been 8 days of protection. Discussion has been very little regarding the removal of the "controversy" section. Could you please remove the protection. Help2008Montana (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection expired yesterday and now the page is open for editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin image input

I could just kiss you. But I'm a dude. So i'll just say well done. Duuude007 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a uncropped version that could be added, but I wasnt sure how you did that. the source is here: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg On the left is aide Ivy Frye (implicated in troopergate); the other is former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman. Duuude007 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Permission for the uncropped version was not given to OTRS. The permission was for just that portion, as far as I understand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

• You can check my talk page. I am in consistent talk with Bob Weinstein, he gave me unlimited permission for both. Duuude007 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the picture. — Writegeist (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And on the Couric interview! - Writegeist (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote on your user page

Just a note, the quote on your user page is from Miikka Ryokas. Have a nice day. :)  Asenine  09:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Email

Are you available for e-mail right now? Grsz^talk 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

sure. I am on IRC as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman lettering

Jossi, I am bringing this here because I see that you have given some attention to the Calligraphy article. There is a related article (linked to the calligraphy article) called Roman square capitals that I rewrote and moved to Roman imperial capitals yesterday. This morning it was moved back and reverted. The information in the article is wrong in virtually every respect, including the title. (I have been a professional calligrapher for about 20 years, and would not have made the changes without knowing what I was doing.)

Any suggestions? I am getting tired of having to fight over every change I make to a WP article, and at this point would leave it completely wrong rather than get into another editing conflict. (By the way there is an edit on the article's talk page (the only edit there) dated 11:26, 6 June 2006, that points out the problem; and which I corrected, and is now reverted back. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Square caps" refers to a manuscript style that looks like this: [43]

Imperial caps look like this [44] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look later on. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why we don't discuss this in talk? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Which talk page? And talk to whom? It is my experience that editors who write edit summaries like "huh?" when reverting my edits are not very open to discussion. I regret leaving the article in such miserable shape, but sometimes nothing can be done. However, if you have any suggestions I will try. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Roman square capitals page, and to me? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to Talk:Roman square capitals, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, after thinking it over more, your suggestion of two articles (a sort of two state solution) seems the best possible. Would there be any problems if I simply went ahead and created a new article, called Imperial Roman Capitals, and using the material I used in my now reverted version (but using a different image)? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Is there any particular reason why you reverted here while disregarding and bypassing the ongoing discussion at the talk page? I didn't notice any explanation from you in your edit summary or at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did comment in talk. Note that WP:3RR is not an entitlement: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Maybe you should look at applying WP:BRD instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply that followed your revert. I'm still unclear why you think the material should be in the article, but we can discuss it more at the talk page. I realize that 3RR is not an entitlement. It's frustrating to do the "R" in BRD, whereas the person who does the "B" refuses to do the "D" and instead repeats the "B".Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That is called WP:BRRR : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny "J"

Should probably go full-protect. Half of the people adding his death are accounts and semi won't even slow them down. HalfShadow 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

talk:Sarah Palin

I just added a lengthy section about how policies relate to this article, can you go over it and make sure I didn't make any mistakes? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrology article on wiki- question about image

Hi - there is an image of a 16th century medieval european woodcut of the zodiac signs on various astrology pages, and when i click on it your name is at the bottom. i apologize for being a new user of Wikipedia and i'm not sure if you are the person to contact, but i would be very interested in finding the source of that image...any information would be really appreciated! Thanks, Beth Bme204 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pig Pic

Hi Jossi- I really like your image at Lipstick on a pig and fully support your recent change to it. I think the poll on the talk page is biasd and meaningless. Take a look at the quantity of reversions of User:71.178.193.134 who created the poll and strongly objects to the images. Take care, IP75 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

My apologies for being such a misguided and wrong "rule tool" on the Palin talk page, re: the Newsweek article. I thought I was citing an important policy, and citing it properly. I stand corrected. Best wishes! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

comment revert

Hello, you recently reverted an abusive comment about this user. Please understand the context of this comment and reconsider your action. The user made the comment as part of canvassing/flaming drive relating to a sock puppetry accusation. This has been identitifed and redressed by Binksternet. Please consult here for context. Also please see the comments left on the offending user's talk page. I would ask that you please undo your unwarranted revert, as the user's actions amount to disruption. Thanks S.Semitransgenic (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but note that refactoring comments from talk page discussions is not the appropriate way to deal with this (See WP:REFACTOR). Please seek the assistance of an univolved editor or admin by placing a notice at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have an ongoing dispute with this user(s), so you will be better served by allowing an uninvolved admin deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

there was input from various editors. thanks for your help. Actually, can you explain why you think it is necessary to leave a disruptive comment on a talk page that in no way relates to the article subject matter at hand, and why you think it is necessary for me to have run around the mill to remove something that is quite obviously posted inappropriately and in a manner that serves only to make a personal attack on another editor? I find your approach to this somewhat unsual, especially as you have the required administrative powers to address this. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. I restored the comment and advised you to pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Excuse me, but I find common sense somehow lacking in the action you took. It is the user who engaged in WP:CANVASS that you should be advising about WP:DR. I find your attitude unacceptable, and the statement Please seek the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin contradictory when you are actually in a position to make an intelligent judgment call based on facts. A simple look at the users talk page would have confirmed that a problem was noted by other editors, but you chose to ignore this. Believe me, the real reason for this action has not been lost on me. You've made your point. Have a nice day. Semitransgenic (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Prod on Jason Scott case

Hi Jossi, please have a look at the above; it has been prodded for deletion, but I don't think the reasoning is sound. The previous article appears to have been about Jason Scott, the person; this article is about the civil suit that followed his kidnapping. While I agree that Jason Scott does not fulfil notability requirements, the civil suit was eminently notable, with wide press coverage, and resulted in a landmark decision; the article cites plenty of sources, to which dozens could be added. Cheers, Jayen466 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Jossi; I've removed the prod. Cheers, Jayen466 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin

Hi Jossi, I wanted to let you know that the article Public image and reception of Sarah Palin was redirected to the above title and about 80% of the content was removed. What do you think about this? IP75 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the massive deletion of content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated - Sarah Palin - NPOV?

Please cast your vote at the discussion page. Thanks LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac

We are having new discussion about "Jasenovac Holocaust Extermination camp". Because of your comments [45] in last discussion (2007) with which we have created consensus you are called to new discussion. All editors from last RFC are called to discussion on Template talk:The Holocaust. --Rjecina (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oneness

Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneness (mathematics) as a no consensus merge (the consensus was clearly against keeping as a separate article) can I ask what content you think should be merged, and what justification there is for adding that content to Collatz problem and keeping the redirect? It's easy to say merge but in this case it's not at all obvious how to implement your decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello David. There was no consensus for deletion, most comments leaning toward a merge. You can simply redirect the article to [[Collatz problem and put the text of Oneness (mathematics) in talk page for discussion with other active editors there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There were four comments for deletion (counting the nominator) and two for a merge. So I don't understand your "most comments" issue. However, this is not a vote. The issue is that there is no reliable source for "oneness" to mean what it is claimed to mean here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

David: There were three comments for delete and two for merge; that means no consensus to delete. What would be the problem for redirecting Oneness (mathematics) to [[Collatz problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, e.g., if one searches MathSciNet for the word "oneness", none of the 25 hits have anything to do with the Collatz problem. It is not a word that is used with that meaning in mathematics, except for in the one web page pointed to by the current oneness article. Redirecting it that way would mislead Wikipedia readers into thinking that this is a standard mathematical term when it's actually a neologism. As several of the delete comments pointed out and none of the merge comments refuted. It's not the conceptual content that's at issue (the function counting the number of steps to reach 1 in the Collatz problem defines a sequence that's listed in OEIS, and that might perhaps be worth mentioning in the Collatz article), the problem is the specific "oneness" name. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, please re-list for AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

I've had a go at tidying up the RR BLP, eliminating some of the to and fro between critics and supporters and improving the sourcing. Pls review, if you have time. There is now actually less criticism than before; let me know if you feel I have gone too far in that. But I thought given that it is a BLP, better tread softly. Cheers, Jayen466 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Pinochet

You missed an early section in talk, Talk:John McCain#Meeting Pinochet. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wild Side Story" References No Good?

Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emil, I have commented at Talk:Wild Side Story. Let's continued the discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased deletions

Just wondering if you could look at this [46] Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Be patient and let editors comment on the AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God for 32 years? Since she was six years old? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Her family joined that Church when she was a child.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection of John McCain

Hi Jossi - I completely agree. The length of the protection was because the article was already semi-protected and move protected until December 1, and if I set a different expiry date I would cause those other two protections to expire then as well. As I noted in my protection summary, I fully intend to unprotect the article (or would endorse another uninvolved admin doing so) much sooner than December - I was thinking on the order of a couple of days. I hope that clarifies things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ping you in a couple of days to remind you :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Left to my own devices I'd probably agree with you (if you check the talk page, you'll notice that I actually announced earlier today that I was about to unprotect it), but there seems to be a pseudo-consensus to fully protect McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin until after election day, so I'm divesting myself of any involvement until that gets figured out on ANI (it may already have been figured out - I haven't been paying attention). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

-

Barack Obama's article

Hi. I agree with your decision to downgrade the protection level on this page. It's not proper to allow only administrators to edit a page like that. That should really be in cases of extreme vandalism, or for certain non-project space articles, IMHO. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the protection was not downgraded, just the tag - non admins, even experienced editors, are still not allowed to edit these articles and it's wrong. As I said on AN/I, I don't think removing the tag accomplishes what you want, Jossi - if we're in violation of principle we ought to be up front about it. Or stop violating the principle. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

glitch?

This was strange. It doesn't matter (he'll yell at you, not me!) but I just wondered what happened. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! how that happened? I got no edit conflict.... Self-reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not the first time that's happened. I think I did something similar yesterday. Hmmm.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[47] hm? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.... something must be wrong, see above. Please restore your comments... probably a glitch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hall protection

Jossi, might you leave a note at Thetoxicdump's talk page to explain the protection to him? Obviously I could, but I think it'd be better for you to do so. He's fairly new and seems eager to add a lot to that article, he's just not conforming to standards of style and content that well which is where this reverting derives from. I've tried to engage him in conversation about it at his talk page, but as far as I can tell, his only communication on Wikipedia, so far, has been one image talk comment where he tried to justify the logo's existence. If you could just leave him a note explaining what the protection means, and what you're suggesting, I'd appreciate it. Metros (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Why is this article protected? You might want to check tu uso de las herramientas. Ya te llevas o que?Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected due to vandalism of anon users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracias por haber tenido la bondad de informarnos. Prosiga, caballero--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Parthian Scribe

Jossi, why the heck did you block Parthian Scribe? And for "vandalism"? The worst that I see there is an abuse of rollback, nothing blockable. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I must concur here with J.Delanoy. I don't see anything that could be construed as vandalism in any form; I see him making a good-faith change to an article, I don't see where he vandalised anything... He may have been edit-warring, but then again, he never reverted more than once, and his edits were not all that controversial. Please review your block of this user, and consider lifting it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That was a false positive during the vandalism attempts after the election results were announced. I have unblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)