User talk:Jossi/Archives/14

WP:MOF?

Jossi, I was going to learn about WP:MOF but can't find it. Is that the name that you intended? Thanks. Tanaats 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... I meant WP:MOS (Manual of Style). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for your kind wishes. Happy New Year to you as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, Thanks for being patient with me, you have quite a job monitoring the "CULT" group!lol I had a good laugh learning that wikipedia was being considered as "CULT".....lol! I am in a CULT :-)!PEACETalkAbout 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! May all your days be merry and bright. -Will Beback · † · 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From the user you welcomed to Wikipedia (with a great template might I add unlike other welcomes by others). =) (moved this message cause it looked out of place alone above there) Berserkerz Crit 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Happy New Year and happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

email

Jossi, I sent you an email. — goethean ॐ 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not received it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s. sorry for the "form letter". I am truly appreciative of your contributions to the entire Wikipedia project, as well as for your consideration of others. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

I see that you agreed with my position re the use of several editor's original research from their personal website as a basis for this article. I've also been informed that b/c of my concerns that I am apparently accused of being a sockpuppet attempting to harass and intimidate the users responsible for doing this. How should I proceed to ensure that the non-suitable material is removed without further baseless accusations being made against me? Jefferson Anderson 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have trouble, seek the attention of other editors by placing an WP:RFC. Requests for Comments, are the first step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Jefferson Anderson 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Moving a page

Umm can you kindly move ABS-CBN to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation at the requests of active Filipino Wikipedians editing the article (see talk page of ABS-CBN). I wanted to do it myself but it seems the new page has an edit history besides a redirect link. =( Hehe thanks jossi. Berserkerz Crit 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wee thanks a lot. Berserkerz Crit 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still Unsure of Myself

Hi Jossi, could you take a look at this and refactor the ethnic identifications (i.e. "all of them are Jewish") if you feel it is appropriate. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu swastika

• Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Use of Swastika. Thanks. IZAK 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Free Republic

Jossi, I must advise you that FAAFA is continuing to use an unreliable source in violation of WP:RS. He is opposed by a consensus, yet he keeps making these reverts to include material by Todd Brendan Fahey, a person who brags about the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol her has used. This is not a RS. Please make a ruling regarding the use of Fahey as a RS. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look and see if I can offer some advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer at The Secret (film)

User 76.169.138.26 (talk · contribs) at The Secret (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has for the 4th or 5th time set the link to the Google Video of the film to the Spanish version of the film. I wrote a brief summary of this and related issues at the talk page, Link to film at Google Video. I am planning to submit a request for investigation on the user and thought I should contact you first on this. — WikiLen 06:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for disruption. Hopefully he/she will understand what these types of edits bring... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — WikiLen 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Double standards

Jossi, I think you clearly show double standards on the article Prem Rawat

1. You support inlcude inclusion of contentious self-published material that makes negative comments about third parties
2. You support excluding material sourced to the Washington Post
3. You accuse me of gaming the system with my revert, though I sought dispute resolution. Comments by uninvolved editor is dismissed or ignored by you and Momento.

Andries 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear to both you and Momento, that reverting each other does not get you anywhere. The comment by that editor, missed the point, based on a straw man argument you presented (and that you keep making above). No one has made the point that the Washington Post is an unreliable source, only that when the comments made in that article are taken in their entirety (and not by selectively citing from it), these comments fail WP:BLP. As for your comment at (1) You may have missed that I deleted the contentious material. And as for (3), I did not acussed you of anything, I simply pointed you to the policy of WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You should not dismiss comments by uninvolved editors as misled in disputed resolution when they do not agree with you. Andries 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. No, you only toned it down. Andries 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not "dismiss" anything, Andries. I responded to his statement and the editor did not respond back. I would appreciate if you take this discussion to the article's talk page, in particular about the suitability of that material when taken in its entirety and not selectively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the right place for it because I am complaining about your behavior, not about the article. I have to admit that I have not always followed this principle in the past. Andries 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have said enough about it. Re-read my responses at the BLP noticeboard.: I never disputed the reliability of The Washington Post as you keep asserting. The dispute is about the selective quotation from a source, as to not to shatter the credibility of the person making the comments you want included in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Podtacular Clans Section

Sorry to bother you, but I was just wondering why you deleted the majority of the clans section of this article. Other gaming communities such as Halo.Bungie.Org Have sections for their clans, why can't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmatsw (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia articles need to be as much as possible referenced to verifiable sources (See WP:V). That is sometimes difficult in articles about popular culture. Nonetheless, articles in Wikipedia need to be encyclopedic, so less is more in these cases. You may want to read What Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and racism

There are double redirect-problems that were created by your move of Zionism and racism. There may only be one, but I came across it just now so it's been there for a few days. Please look and see and fix the redirects. Thanks, KazakhPol 20:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that it has been moved again, so the double-redirects may be a consequence of the reversion of my move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MS Elation

Hey jossi, would you kindly look at MS Elation article. I've prod tagged it because it suspiciously violates WP:NOTE and WP:COI. Thanks! =) Berserkerz Crit 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Announced product

Template:Announced product 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. -- -/- Warren 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

Just a short note to say thanks for the working out of WP:COI. Although initially there was uncertainty of what was best, I'm pleased we did end up working together co-operatively on it, and I think the Wiki's better for your input on the subject! Many thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

You have posted a WP:3RR Warning on the article Talk page at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. If it was your intention to warn one or more of the editors working on this article, you may wish to repost this at the relevant User Talk page(s). RolandR 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a generic message to all editwarriors at that article. Those that keep disrupting may be blocked. They surely know who they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

We have a situation where extremely interesting¸ relevant and up to date info from the poster Nihipri has been vandalised repeatedly b Isarig and RolanR¸ and now the page is protected with their version¸ all the new info deleted again. They have an agenda to make sure the info on GA remains very superficial¸ without any meat¸ and portrays him in a bad light. I do not think leaving the entry protected with their information as is in the interests of anyone and would like to call for some mediation here.

Just comparing the two versions – the one which Isarig and Riland R have been insisting remains as it for ages¸ and the new info¸ it becomes clear which is more relevant¸ interesting and NEUTRAL.

I am relatively new to Wiki¸ but would like to know what can be done about this now?

It seems to me that wiki is not an encclopedia at all¸ but a disinformation site¸ controlled and protected by Zionist moles. That’s is how it is looking from where I stand.

Ednas 09:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome mediation on the page. This would prevent Ednas and suspected sockpuppet Nihipri from constantly inserting into the article the untrue statement that GA's books are banned in Israel. It would prevent them from constantly deleting a reference to a protest against GA, with the false claim that the URL is broken. It would prevent them from deleting from the article reference to GA's antisemitic writings, and to criticism of him by Jews Against Zionism and Michael Rosen. And it would prevent them from turning the article into one bloated puff for GA's alleged brilliance and wisdom.

Ednas hints above that Isarig and I are "Zionist moles", and on Talk:Gilad Atzmon he refers to "stalking by members of the sanhedrin". These offensive antisemitic remarks have no place in Wikipedia. They are reminiscent of Atzmon's own dismiisal of anti-Zionist Jewish critics as "the elders of London" [1] and "modern day Christ killers" [2]. If, as it seems, Gilad Atzmon is editing his own entry on Wikipedia, he should do so transparently. And he should refrain from using Wikipedia as a platfiorm to continue his campaign of racist abuse against his critics. RolandR 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you request help via an Request for comments, as the first step in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fromn EdnaS: Please go to [3] for the latest comments on the discussion page.

I am more than willing to assist with the editing of the Atzmon info. However¸ I would like the info submitted by Nihipri to be restored¸ and would like us to work from that info. It is outrageous that the Wiki admin protected the page in the version restored by Roland Rance¸ a completely biased “editor”¸ with an agenda against GA. I would also like Wiki admin to block Rance¸ Isarig and Maccoby permanently from editing the GA info. This is the most obvious first step¸ and should have been done ages ago. Ednas 09:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi and Felix¸ let’s get going then. I suggest we start with a broad comparison of the two versions¸ and come to some agreement about which one to have running while we work on the editing. I suggest that we work from the more inclusive¸ informative version¸ which is also less polemical and then decide what to incorporate from the Rance version. I also think the subtitles of music¸ literature¸ political writing and politics should remain as is¸ with perhaps one more as felix suggests¸ dealing with the controversy and labeling. Please respond soon so that we can speed up this editing process somewhat. Ednas 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, there's been no response from Isarig or RolandR on the talk page, but I think that we have a basis from which to start re-editing, which involves condensing the controversial parts to one section which could then be properly discussed and resolved on the discussion page.(Can sections be protected if necessary?) But anyway, can the page be unfrozen?Felix-felix 10:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Floor cleaning services

Well, thats..... yes.... that's some accolade. Thank you...

Would I? I think so. It'd help a lot with the vandalism and protection/unprotection requests I have to ask others to do right now, and probably let me be more involved in deletion/undeletion work. Mostly though, it'd mean that when something's not right, or a problem's reported that needs admin type work, it'd be possible to help rather than just agree its not right and dump it on someone else to do it.

Tongue in cheek though, I'd be interested in agreeing, just to read the nom :)

Going back a bit, I self-nom'ed for RfA about last June, but at that time didn't appreciate the importance of edit summaries. I withdrew at the time; it felt wrong to be nominated over the wishes of 1 in 5 expressing concern over too-low edit summary usage, when that would be easy to correct and reassure and then re-request. But I didn't get round to the re-request, not sure why.

Anyhow, yes, and thank you for the vote of confidence. I'll try to continue living up to it if it gets agreement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The message says to let you know I accepted. So this is to let you know.

As an aside, I hope the response on standard questions is okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now posted at WP:RFA. Good luck with the nomination...! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and as an aside, email for you, too! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to do a few chores, get back to outstanding namespace editing, and checking the watchlist for a few policy queries I have outstanding waiting for responses. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see recent comments at Generation Rescue

We believe we are being reasonable, please opine to help resolve. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.111.117 (talk • contribs)

Exceptional claims on a BLP

You were previously kind enough to comment on the BLP Nick Baker (chef) case. I am not too familiar with wikiquette, so if this is the wrong place to ask a question please direct me to the correct place, but in your opinion would be correct to say that claims introduced by an editor on a biography of a living person that includes material that brings into question a person's or group's integrity and honesty and further, claims they misrepresented the case, could be described as "Exceptional Claims" as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources? I refer particularly to Nick_Baker_(chef)#Criticism_of_Baker_and_the_Support_group Thanks again. David Lyons 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This question has already been answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&direction=next&oldid=100351270#Self-published_Editorial_as_a_reliable_sourceSparkzilla 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sparkzilla, It has not. This question is NOT about whether Metropolis is a reliable source or not - it is about whether the claims are exceptional or not. Now, may I proceed to ask a simple question? David Lyons 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What claims are deemed exceptional? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the following claims exceptional since they imply Iris Baker and the support group behaved dishonestly, inconsistantly and/or gave out misleading information -

"After coming to believe that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest he reversed his position[19] and claimed in an editorial in September 2004 that Iris Baker and the support group had not been honest in their presentation of facts to the public."

"In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site. [23] Since she claimed Devlin had said she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited him to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she could proceed with a libel action. Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case" [24] To date no libel suit has been filed."

"Documents released by the defense indicated that when Baker and Prunier had been travelling in Europe, Prunier introduced two Israelis to Baker and explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to them by bringing something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. [21] The statements also indicated that the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, and showed him three murder-scene photos to illustrate their point."

"Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case."

"Towards the end of the appeal information became available that the Belgian dupes had not been set free, but had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences."

"Also, Baker’s local MP, David Drew, would not give his support to the campaign, citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on [Baker’s] website.”

Thank you. David Lyons 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that these are exceptional claims, David. My concern, though, would be more along the lines of using an editorial as a source. Editorials, and op-eds cannot be used to assert facts. They can only be used to assert the opinion of the editor. As such, the text above, to remain in the article about a living person, needs to be written as attributed to the person voicing that opinion. Another concern would be of NPOV#Undue weight. I am not familiar with the subject, but editors should assess if the opinion of that person is significant enough to warrant so much space in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Jossi. I have already voiced a concern over the under weight issue and will explore it further. Sorry to appear ignorant, but where can I find out more about writing in an attribution style? David Lyons 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact there are two source articles. The first is an editorial, which is attribuited correctly. ie. "Devlin claimed..." The second article, a round-up of the case, was already the taken to WP:RS and received the following response:

Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case? Answers: Usually, and as it relates to the specific article, yes.

I rewrote the criticism section of the article to attribute all claims and cited all facts.

As for the undue weight issue, David Lyons is going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the opinion of the publisher of Japan's largest English-language magazine (with over 600 issues in a 12 year history), and the publisher of Japan's largest English news and current events discussion site is not important. It is fair to assume that the publisher is 1. An expert on Japan-related issues 2. An expert on the Nick Baker case (Iris Baker confirms that he wrote a 30-page report on the case) and 3. A reliable source when giving his opinion that a support group that he worked with has misled him.

If you check his contributions you will see that David Lyons is acting in bad faith by using narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidleines to try to suppress information negative to his campaign to free Baker. So far he has tried to deny the relevant section by saying the sources were self-published (dealt with on WP:RS). Next he tried to misrepresent the notability of the source saying the magazine is minor (it isn't), then the publisher's expertise (it's relevant). Now he tried exceptional claims with you (they aren't). Now he is onto undue weight (if anything the article is too positive to Baker).

While this is all very educational re the workings of Wikipedia, might I humbly suggest that if David Lyons cares so much about Wikipedia quality, that he actually works to improve other sections of the article instead? Sparkzilla 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With some patience and the help of other editors, it should be easy to resolve this dispute. I have made some adjustments to the article. If there are other sources besides that magazine, that would be best. Otherwise we ought to attribute these viewpoints directly to the magazine and not assert them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. The original source for the material was the Justice for Nick Baker site, but they removed sources from their site to attempt to show that the Metropolis article had unsupported claims. For example, they removed a statement from their site that showed Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest, and removed the defense documents. I have an alternate archival source for this information, but I believe that the support group will try to remove that also. Would I then also have to remove the source from the article? Sparkzilla 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Start by moving all refs to the cite web format, as requested in talk. That will greatly help ascertain the use of sources in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. BTW, can you tell me how to deal with differences in magazine/encyclopedic styles? Sparkzilla 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Use a more formal tone, not the tone used by advocacy journalism. One example may be the article on the Trenton Six. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Trenton site, but felt it was a bit light on detail. I think editors on the Baker page were generally following Schapelle_Corby. Maybe there could be a better disctinction between content and tone in the Baker article. Is there anything part in particular you think that could be improved on tonally, so that editors may get an idea where to start? Also, is the big magazine tag really necessary at the top of the page? Thanks. Sparkzilla 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2

I have only positive things to say about him, but would rather you make the nomination alkone. When you do, though, you can count on my support with a comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. His RFA is now ongoing. WP:RFA#FT2. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidhoji Rao Shitole

I have no problems with your revisions and quite happy with the article as it is. Kindly remove the warning from my Talk Page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminator III (talk • contribs) , 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend leaving it, it appears that this user has been actively removing warnings from his talkpage. Sfacets 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call him a loon, but that would be a personal attack... Sfacets 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI I'm challenging a cite on DIMPAC

Hi Jossi. In case you're still interested I thought I'd tell you that I'm challenging a cite on DIMPAC for WP:V. Tanaats 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Let me know if you need any further input on that article, as it is off my whatchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord!

Robert Anton Wilson, one of the great writers and thinkers of the 20th century has passed on. His seminal work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, and other writings, taught me not only to question almost everything, but to honor the power of, and sometimes even embrace the outlandishness of certain conspiracy theories, while not necessarily believing in them. After all -- how far apart in terms of probability, are the claims that aliens from the planet Xenu terrorized the earth, that the planes which hit the WTC were actually holograms, that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth are really Reptilian Humanoids, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days and survived unscathed? Robert (RAW) was a libertarian, founder the Guns and Dope Party, The Pope of the Church of the SubGenius and Bishop of Discordianism. If you don't know his work, (you probably do) especially The Trilogy, you should. All Hail Eris! and fnord! - Fairness And Accuracy For Tom Delay 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminator III

I'm pretty certain that Terminator III the same person as NoToFrauds who was indef blocked back in March after using 82.15.17.152 to evade his block. Note the article T3 started with and what article NTF and the IP address ended with.... A Ramachandran 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to make the exact same note. I have no doubt its the same person. Hamsacharya dan 08:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

unilateral renaming?

I commented on your unilateral renaming. Could you please be more careful in future? -- Geo Swan 09:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker (chef)

I was wondering why you renamed Nick Baker (disputed conviction) to Nick Baker (chef)? Baker is not notable for being a chef, but for being a convicted drug smuggler. Surely Nick Baker (drug smuggler) would be more appropriate? Sparkzilla 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm curious about this too. Although he is a chef, it is not the reason he is on Wikipedia. But then again, if he was just a drug smuggler, he would also unlikely have a page either since there are surely many, many drug smugglers out there not notable enough to have an entry. Baker's notability, and why he gained so much press is that he disputed his conviction and the Japanese trial and questions raised about the Japanese legal/penal system. I would therefore suggest Nick Baker (disputed drug conviction) or Nick Baker (Prisoner in Japan). David Lyons 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of an article should be as neutral as possible. The only reason for the parenthesis is to disambiguate the article. See Nick Baker. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan), "chef" is completely irrelevantSparkzilla 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to make this future proof, perhaps it should be Nick Baker (imprisoned in Japan)? David Lyons 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A far as I can tell, nouns are better than verbs. Please use (prisoner in Japan) Sparkzilla 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Update> I renamed the page to Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Sparkzilla 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is better. Whilst I understand the need for neutrality. The chef attribution reminded me of some kind of Jamie Oliver type celebrity chef. David Lyons 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the title with (chef) is fine and NPOV. --ElectricEye (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Secret and New Thought wording

Hello Jossi,

I see that in The Secret (film) you just changed "a new thought film" to "a film associated with New Thought." I prefer "a New Thought film" because it's not just associated with, it's about. Have you seen the film and do you disagree? DBlomgren 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, DBlomgren. To tell you the truth, I am uneasy with both versions as it implies an assertion of fact that is not sourced. If we can find a source that describes the film as a "new though" film, or that is associated with that movement, that would be the best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you I saw it at a Unity Church, which is a New Thought church. The minister even claimed "this is based on our ideas." Also, if you read the description of the film and the New Thought article, they're basically saying the same thing.

If Unity or other New Thought churches mention the film on their websites and refer to it as New Thought, would that be a meaningful source to you? DBlomgren 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case we need to attribute it, rather than stating as a fact, for example:

"According to the Unity Church, the film is based on the ideas of New Thought." (source here)

That is NPOV writing 101 :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this quote from Time Magazine[4]:

The DVD is called The Secret, but it didn't remain one for long. Even though you won't find it at your local Blockbuster or Barnes & Noble, it is selling briskly through new-age bookstores, New Thought churches like Unity and Agape and its own website www.thesecret.tv.

I'll go edit the page if you don't mind. :) DBlomgren 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Just make sure you attribute the text to Times magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the change, but direct cut and pastes should be done as quotes or reworded to avoid potential charges of plagiarism. --Insider201283 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TJ Walker no such article

Jossi, I work here at the office of The Wikimedia Foundation. I verified that information was not accurate per a phone conversation with the alleged author. I apologize if I did not go through the proper channels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seand59 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Would be nice if you add some wording to that effect to your user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, how do we know this person works at the Wikimedia Foundation? And how do we know that this phone call was ever made? A Phone call is not a RS. And it absolutely is not V. BenBurch 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We could ask at talk at WP:OFFICE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good idea! BenBurch 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, user has been indef blocked for impersonation of Wikimedia Foundation staff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you all might like to know that Seand59, who edited this article a few hours ago (and was immediately blocked indefinitely for impersonating a Wikimedia staff member), is now known as Carolyn-WMF. Her account has been unblocked by Danny. She really does work for the Wikimedia Foundation.

The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist. Click on the link you provided. It's a blank page. I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. Dino 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have blocked Dino above, as sock of BryanFromPalatine, based on editing pattern, and most importantly name (see Talk:Free Republic). Prodego ^talk 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

More trouble with BryanFromPalatine's socks.

Please see [5], Thanks! BenBurch 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Please see this evidence connecting Terminator III with indef blocked NoToFrauds. A Ramachandran 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I am not surprised.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(PS: I also put green chilies on everything) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle)

A rd lk to James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) was apparently not removed from James Mason (disambiguation) after the successful AfD nomination by you; in cleaning up that Dab, i learned that James Duke Mason is another title for the same topic, and rdr'd accordingly. IMO

_ _ the content is not "substantially identical" so G4 is not applicable;

_ _ this is not merely technical, since the AfD'd version was so low in quality as to invite the error of judging the content rather than the encyclopedicity of the topic;

_ _ nevertheless there is a high probability that the participants would have judged this one similarly.

Perhaps you'll wish to drive another stake into the beast.
--Jerzy•t 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you place it in AfD? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MichaelLinear

Before you say anything, I listed him at AIV because of his comments to Jimbo's talk page, which are a bit questionable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. If he disrupts Wikipedia, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just asking why did you undo my comments on the Kraken talk page? I put them back, if that's okay. MichaelLinnear 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Delezio

I do not believe that you have made the correct decision in this case. There was not an overwhelming vote to "Merge" and most were from fundamentalist deletionists who would not have any knowledge about the notability or otherwise of the man. This is evidenced by some of the exceptionally stupid things they said to "back up" their vote. The fact is Delezio and the article met Wp standards by any measure although the article could have been improved (as is the case with a large proportion of the articles here).

I have two questions:

a) what are the criteria for restablishing the article? (That is what additional content would be required to pass whatever test you applied?) b) is there somewhere I can appeal your decision? I have looked but I could not find anything.

Thanks for your time

Albatross2147 07:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that reading the discussions at the AfD, the subject is best treated in the article about his daughter, where the notability lies. I merged all the pertinent content to that article, and if there is a lot of material about Mr. Delezio that will expand the article too much, it could be re-considered to split into its own article as per Wikipedia:Content forking. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GOOD BOOKS FOR A VERSATILE MAN

Here some good books:

Friedrich Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality; Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil; Friedrich Nietzsche: Untimely Meditations; Friedrich Nietzsche: The Gay Science; Friedrich Nietzsche: Daybreak; Friedrich Nietzsche: The Antichrist; Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, all too Human; Friedrich Nietzsche: Ecce Homo; Friedrich Nietzsche: Twilight of the Idols; Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra; Friedrich Nietzsche: On The Future of our Educational Institutions; Friedrich Nietzsche: Unpublished Notebooks;

Oswald Spengler: The Decline of the West; Oswald Spengler: Man and Technics;

Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince;

Ragnar Redbeard: Might is Right, or: Survival of the Fittest;

Francis Galton: Essays in Eugenics;

François de La Rochefoucauld: Maxims;

Paul Rée: Psychological Observations; --FreeSpirit3 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on RfA!

With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments.

Of those, the first I want to write of all of them, is to you, to express my thanks for your confidence and trust, your openmindedness to actively check out people you don't know, and your willingness to then RfA someone you had only seen briefly in one area of the project.

It says a lot, that kind of trust and insight. Clearly you wouldn't do it if you didn't think it was a good long term bet. I'll be hoping to live up to your hopes longer term this end too.

I'm glad that overall, consensus justified your feelings, t's funny in a way that we probably still haven't spoken much on anything beyond COI and RfA. But now that's over, I strongly hope you'll stay in touch, because as a new user of admin access, I might well benefit from guidance for a while to come. I trust my existing approach overall, but its an area one doesn't really want to make even a single mistake, and where the judge is the eyes of ones peers. So advice would be a Good Thing.

To start that off, I've already asked for advance guidance from other admins active in two areas that I'm likely to be involved in long term - dispute handling, and suspected socks. As time goes on, I might want to come back to you for advice on these and other issues too. I'd appreciate it if you could watchlist User:FT2/Advice sought which is my first step to ensuring this new access is taken as a responsible user.

Otherwise, do keep in touch. Friendships formed over initial differences tend to be strong ones, because one's seen the other person as they are, initially. Keep in touch and once again - many many thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure... I'll keep an eye on User:FT2/Advice sought, and congratulate you again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A call to reason

"You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?"

I think we had something of a breakthrough last night when we got down to discussing what's important in an article. I think that, deep down, we both believe in the same thing. That is, that it's appropriate to have some critical opinion on a subject, provided it meets up to certain standards. In that light, there is a notable amount of information that is valid in an article on Prem Rawat, and a whole whopping mess of evidence that isn't. The trick is going to be which is which, and how to present it in a way that doesn't unnecessarily marginalize what is valid, as this too is a form of undue weight.

All that being said, I think the problem between us is that we see one another with a bit of mistrust; that we perceive each other as proponents of the opposite view and the reflex is to see the other person, either consciously or not, as "the enemy". I recognize that you like Rawat's message, but I also recognize that you are a responsible and moderate editor. I value your input, and will continue to respect your position, and I am just asking that you do the same. Let's both assume good faith and try to work together and argue to discuss all points of view, and not just to win points. I'll play nice, and you try to as well, eh? Mael-Num 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the spirit, Mael. I take that in good faith, but note that the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues on Aurobindo

Jossi, could you give your opinion of the copyright issues here? An editor is contributing material that was previously published on a website. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Jossi, please protect this article from being edited by unregistered users. It is continually being vandalised. Kkrystian 17:33 (UTC+1) 22 January 2007

Please place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Secret

Jossi, Jerry and Esther Hicks were one of the main contributors to version one of the DVD. The story about why they left is very relevant to discussion of the project. The link was not a sales tool. Robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinmr (talk • contribs)

Hi!

You fix vandalism so quickly! You've beaten me to 3 reverts already! Good job! --Nevhood 04:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RV

Good to see you hang around in Recent changes land. Perhaps you would also like to check out Special:Newpages land, where there's less stress and an admin would be appreciated. =) {Slash-|-Talk} 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am actually hanging around the vandalism-en-wp IRC channel for RC and Newpages, so I see both these on my console. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Let me join. {Slash-|-Talk} 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You have mail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be banned there. =) {Slash-|-Talk} 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I was only banned in #wikipedia. Do #wikipedia bans carry over? {Slash-|-Talk}

No. Channel owners have the right to allow or deny access. Contact the channel owner and see if they accept you as a member. You will need to behave real nice, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Film

Hey. I noticed you added "genre" to this infobox without discussion. Since it is protected only an admin can revert this, but could you please revert yourself and propose the addition of this field on the talk page? Consensus seems to be not to make any bold additions to the template. Thanks, Prolog 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Health Claims in The Secret (movie)

Hi, Jossi,

I wanted to make sure you saw this (since you are the one who added the section referred to) before I moved and reworded it. --DBlomgren 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kate Middleton talk page

Thank you for looking into the disagreement regarding the Middleton article. It seems to have been settled by another third party now, but it's good either way:)

The editor I was in disagreement with has deleted the entire debate on the talk page - her comments, mine and other people's. Might you be able to look at this sometime and consider if it should be returned? I don't want to get personally involved in any more disputes with this editor at the moment (I am sure she feels the same way about me!). Hobson 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminator III (talk · contribs)

Hi, there's probably not much you don't know about this, but this person is actively vandalizing once again with this account: Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs)

Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs), NoToFrauds (talk · contribs), are his other suspected sockpuppets diff...I'm not sure which are already confirmed. Hamsacharya dan 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you place a request at WP:ANI? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it. Can you please guide me as to what I should write? Is what I've put here sufficient? Or should I add the recent diffs of vandalism and their subsequent reverts from admins and bots? Sorry, I didn't mean to push off the work on you, its just that I don't really know what I need to put to give an admin the necessary info to take action. Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated on BKWSU page

Hi Jossi,

I would greatly appreciate your input on this issue on the BKWSU talk page [6].

Apart from attacking Riveros11 how does it stand in terms of being included otherwise? I notice that there are cases of sites not being suitable for listing as external links because they are libelous [7]. Is that relevant here? Particularly the news section of the brahmakumaris.info site, where Luis gets named and shamed, also contains many other stories that apparently libel other members of the BKWSU.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" Edit in The Secret (film)

Excellent edit. You fully resolved my concern. Thank you.--P Todd 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A simple case of how attribution and staying close to the source can help NPOV. You may wan to read WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent protection of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

You just protected a version which has been reverted by admins and bots unaffiliated with editing of the page on the grounds that it is vandalism. If you insist on protecting, then please protect the version endorsed by admins/bots without conflict of interest. If you take a quick look at the recent history, you will see that this is true. See diffs: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Hamsacharya dan 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know

The two citations for the criticism I "wrongly" removed don't appear anywhere. Is it possible to track back the contributor of the quotes? He/she might be a recognized expert or would be able to provide references. I love you have a vested interest in this specific article, I'm sorry if I didn't do it the right way, please forgive me, I want to help. Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeni (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure. Lets discuss at that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion - if you have the time or inclination

Hi Jossi

I am currently distressed over the protecting (locking) of my Userpage by the admin known as Guy.

I wrote a piece of constructive criticism about wikipedia and Guy removed it citing WP:SOAP (which seems to refer to articles, not userpages) and so I restored it saying "that refers to encyclopedia articles, not userpages", and then he just re-removed it and locked my page, once again citing WP:SALT, even though it should be strongly noted that WP:USER strongly protects constructive criticism on userpages.

Anyways, I have spent a long time writing up a good overview of the case here (and that is where you can make comments after you have read it)
and I am seeking input from selected users who appeal to me as being constructive, level-headed, analytical, and reasonable (although it is possible that I am mistaken in some cases).
In part, I have chosen you because a) You are an admin, b) You are part of the Third Opinion group, c) you are very experienced with many edits, and d) you are versed in many technical things which may imply that you are somewhat analytical and will be able to deal with the subject matter constructively.

I know that the piece I've written is a little lengthy, so if you find you don't have the time to get involved in this, then I understand. I will be asking a few more people for their input.

I will award barnstars for constructive feedback on this issue -- if I am allowed to do that.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Rfwoolf 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for unprotecting my userpage. However, I have just re-read what was being censored, and for G-d's sake it's not that bad at all -- and I couldn't see any personal attacks. This is what has been frustrating me, because I cannot seem to see eye-to-eye with Guy about censoring the page, and would like to believe this was an abuse of adminship (sure, I could be wrong). Not only was my post rather harmless, but my post was protected by WP:USER, and guy's censorship and protection was unilateral (because I argued against his citation of WP:SOAP in an Edit Summary). It is because of this frustration that I requested feedback on this page here

Anyways, forget about that page if you like, but can you not give honest feedback on whether you believe my post to have been WP:SOAP, whether or not my post was protected by WP:USER, and whether or not Guy's actions were an abuse of his adminship (to answer that question it may be best to read that page I created)

Naturally, the reason I'm asking this is to prevent any more problems, and of course because my userpage was wrongfully censored for 4 days.
Rfwoolf 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have done my bit. You may want to ask others editor's feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: In Edit Summary, User:Guy has called me a Toss blanket. <-- Personal attack? Rfwoolf 08:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, he constantly doesn't address me as my username, instead as 'Woolf' or 'Wolff' which is uncivil. Rfwoolf 08:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived Kate Middleton Discussion

I archived the Kate Middleton discussion dispute as requested. Thank you very much for taking the time to look into the dispute, but I must ask for your assistance again. Yesterday, I archived the discussions as you requested to clean up the discussion page because the debate is over and most of the discussions have been resloved or no one replies to them anymore. However, the editor has now taken it upon themselves to re-add the discussions back in, and they seem to be trying to start another dispute. I fixed the discussion page again but if you think some of the discussions should stay for awhile that is fine, they can added back in. I thought the editor did not want to get into further disputes. RosePlantagenet 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Best is to leave recent discussions and not archive for a while. You can archive these at a later date. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I will leave it up on the discussion page and archive it later, maybe when things cool down some. RosePlantagenet 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"You can lead a horse to water...

but a pencil must be lead." And not for nothing, but it's "lede" in this case[14].

Just pointing that out. Quietly. Burn this message.  ;) Mael-Num 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "lede" is the use in magazines and newspapers, see News_style: The most important structural element of a story is the lede —namely contained in the story's first sentence. Lede (pronounced lēd) is a traditional spelling, from the archaic English. In Wikipedia, though, we call it the article's lead, because we define that not as he first sentence but as the section 0 containing a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So it is. In journalism, the lede is usually the opening paragraph. Lede can also be used to refer to the top of an encyclopedic article. As it happens, I looked it up after I wrote that message, and apparently both spellings are used to refer to the same thing. Just a matter of style, and I'm used to seeing the more traditional form. Guess I learned something too. =) Mael-Num 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And also interesting, it was spelled "lede" to reduce any confusion with the metal which was used at one point in the printing process. Don't lick your finger to turn the page! Mael-Num 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

advice for admins

Thanks! You think I should make it a sub-page of my own user page/ If you want to collaborate on a guideline for new admins, and use this as a basis, I would be happy to work on it with you though you may want to invite others to participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Let's place it at Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators or something along those lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to start with what I wrote - but revise it and reformat it as you see fit. Once you have done that, I will go over it and see if I have more to add, unless you have an idea for how best to proceed. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda said he would help out. But, I would like you to create the article, if you don't mind - this will also give you a chance to edit what I wrote to make it more like the article you envision. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Algebra page

I do hope that the vandalism on the algebra page will soon result in a person being banned form wikipedia.

Phil Moore Math instructor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.54.12 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Free Republic Mediation

Will you please return to the Free Republic mediation?

Your expertise is requested, especially considering the insight you've gained from being one of the chief contributors involved with re-writing RS V into ATT. Thanks. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I have the stamina for another round... What seems to be the problem now? I understand that all disruptive sockpupets have been perma banned. Right? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Administors Noticebaord for the rundown. A 'relative' of the puppetmaster who claims he is part of the 'FR legal team' is now demanding criticism be removed, insinuating lawsuits for libel. He had even had the WMF bookeeper edit the article on his behalf to his POV! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Panther Party

Jossi, I am requesting a semi or total protection for the article Black Panther Party. It is frequently vandalized, main parts removed and the level of uncivility is not worth mentioning here due to its vulgarity and humanly degrading to others. Can you help or can you suggest an Admin that can? Thank you. PEACETalkAbout 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I figured out how to do this. Shant trouble you further. PEACETalkAbout 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to TM article

Hi, Jossi. I'd been considering connecting with you at various points. You first caught my attention with your insightful comments on the RS Talk page. I especially agreed with your comments in the Newspaper thread. I really hope some sentences can be added to RS regarding newspapers as primary vs. secondary sources. A contributor to the article on Transcendental Meditation is in the habit of inserting random negative quotes from newspapers into the article with the attitude that anything said in a newspaper is legitimate, since both WP:POR and WP:RS both seem to suggest that all newspapers are reliable secondary sources.

When I was looking for an advocate and saw your username I considered asking you. And when I looked at your userpage I saw that your perspective may similar. Then I saw that you've been head to head with Tanaats and wondered if it was appropriate to invite you as adovcate in a situation where Tanaats is named. All this is still fairly new to me.

I've only briefly glanced at some of the wider disputes regarding cults, anti-cult movement, NRMs. It seems like Wikipedia is the seat of various culture wars, including the paranormal and religion. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the coming years. Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Just noted your edits and wanted to touch base and thank you. Feel free to repond to the RfC that we have going[15], if you feel it's apprpriate. (We got some great feedback from ALR, who I had invited based in his active participation on the RS Talk page.) TimidGuy 12:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jossi. I appreciate your apt comments. TimidGuy 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry about the wrong information thing. I just a little angry because half of the information my friends found on wikipedia were wrong. My friend got an F on one of her essays because of the wrong information on wikipedia. I'm sorry. I will not do it any more sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.119.243 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Dino's claims

Hi Jossi - I hoped you'll weigh in on THIS claim by Dino, which was during the time that 'his brother' was proven to have created MULTIPLE sock puppet accounts to 'vote', edit the article while blocked, sway consensus, vandalize, etc etc. He claims I'M the reason mediation failed? LOL! "Informal mediation broke down when FAAFA started a full-fledged rewrite of the Free Republic article produced by mediator Jossi." (sorry to drag you back into this Joss ;-( Dino's RFC on Ben Wasn't it supposed to be on the ARTICLE? Thanks - Namaste. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That approach (user RFC) will yield no result besides more animosity between the parties involved. I would suggest you request mediation. Note that if this case ever gets to the ArbCom, I would not be surprised if both sides end up penalized. You and your opponents need to find some common ground. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And BTW, I am not Indian, I am Spanish. Salud! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've worked in good faith and NPOV and TONS of 'positive' stuff to the article , including Walter Reed, Tony Snow, The Dixie Chicks, and tried to voice the criticism in as NPOV a tone as possible. The Freepers want to delete as much documented crticism as possible, and whitewash FR. Remember how Brian and his sock army fought YOU tooth and nail after you did your rewrite? They're the problem, not me. Viva Fernando Alonso! - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Help with Talk: Landmark Education

Jossi, I am trying to maintian NPOV in a convo with Smee around this template idea. I think I need to back off but I also care very much about the quality of that article.. any help you are willing and able to bring as a neutral voice would be appreciated.Alex Jackl 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You will have to find some common ground with Smee and other editors. I will help as much as I can, but refuse to be drawn into the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that and am willing to- I really am. I just find it hard to maintain the "assume good faith" stance in the face of what looks like an overwhelmingly strong POV agenda. Now I am sure he thinks the same about me. SIGH. I appreciate you not wanting to get sucked in. We will work it out -thanks! Alex Jackl 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex, you must realize that from other individuals, it can appear that others are the ones with the "overwhelmingly strong POV agenda." Again, please keep in mind that it was not myself that brought up your conflict of interest, and how it can be seen that indeed everyone might have a POV in this issue. I will "assume good faith" if you will. Smee 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Let us both keep the rest of this convo off of Jossi's talk page and on the relevant article talk pages... Smee 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia Talk:Profanity

Hi Jossi. I do not know your opinions on this subject, but I believe that you are a thoughtful editor who may be able to contribute to keeping discussion on course. Might I impose upon you to add Wikipedia Talk:Profanity to your watch list? Also, if you have time, I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take a quick look, but note BostonMA, that I'll most probably leave this to you and other capable editors. There is only so much one can chew on. Thanks for the heads-up, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn Cramer and User:Pleasantville

I came across this situation and after looking at Pleasantville's edit history I thought it might not be a bad idea to run a RfC or some kind of review, since you are involved more deeply involved and a more experienced editor, I wanted to get your input, thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Seems that this person has cooled off a bit and is maybe now engaging in useful discussions. We shall see... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

She's been asked not to edit her article or make personal attacks. If she's stops, all will be well; if she doesn't, she's likely to be blocked. I'm not sure an RfC would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another bewildered newbie thoroughly bitten. Trebles all round! Grace Note 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I welcome many newbies, and help them as much as I can. But when a newbie calls editors that responded on a posting at WP:COI/N "semi-anonymous people acting like jerks", making sarcastic comments about "mind group", posting an attack piece in her blog in which he called these editors "a pack of officious trolls", and being dismissive to all comments made by others, I would argue that patience is hard to gather. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any case, thanx for tidying up the ref link on that essay of hers.--Orange Mike 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can impose on Jossi's talk page a little further, let me add that the problems with User:Pleasantville go beyond autobiography. That editor also engaged in widespread self-promotion by creating or adding to articles about her projects and her associates. Even worse, she created an attack page on someone who she claims had defrauded her, and added derogatory material to a company that she believes harmed her. There seems to be an effort to establish Pleasantvill/Cramer as a martyr to Wikipedia, but there's no indication that she ever bothered to read any of our policies and appears to have felt we should be grateful that she deigned to use this project as her personal soapbox. She has exhibited such a thin skin that she threatened a boycott just hours after having WP:AUTO pointed out to her. She has made more extensive comments outside of Wikipedia then she ever did here. Some folks just don't "get" Wikipedia, and I'm afriad that Pleasantville hasn't even tried. -Will Beback · † · 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone at Wikipedia please explain to me because it personally affects me and my colleagues and something is really wrong here from an ethical, editorial and policy point of view - Cramer put up Cafasso's bio. All of you who are involved in this know this. She edited in my name and Charlie Black's name - wikipedia edited out those portions on the bio. she then took what she wanted to write and posted it on GOOGLE and superimposed the WIKIPEDIA LOGO and if you google my name, christine dolan + cafasso or charlie black + cafasso - you will see an entry at the top of google listing wikipedia and in that GOOGLE BLOG of Cramers is that page which Wikipedia DID NOT APPROVE. How is it that someone is able to do this? How is it that someone is able to hijack Wikipedia for their own purposes to bolster their personal campaign. I truly do not understand how you editors can allow this to go on. This has been going on and I have been trying to bring this to everyone's attention about the hijacking and abuse of Cramer's personal campaign. I would love for someone to explaint this to me over the phone. Thank you. signed Christine Dolan Feb 1 2007 9:16pm i want clarify this...when you go to that google search - all of that which wiki editors deleted shows up in the "cache" tag...not the file tag that is shown...it is the EXACT material deleted...christine dolan feb 2 0:47am

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of The Colbert Report:

You recently protected[16] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! I have some edit suggestions for The Colbert Report article. In the section entitled Stephen Colbert character, there is information about Colbert accusing the Oshawa Generals hockey team of holding a Teddy bear toss in order to taunt him and Colbert's bet with the mayor of Oshawa. The article now contains incorrect information. When Colbert won, he amended the bet so the mayor will not declare Colbert's birthday as "Colbert Day", but the mayor's own birthday will get that designation. Also, here's a source [17] to cite for all of the information. Thanks! ColtsScore 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Also, a wiki-link to the Teddy bear toss article would be good for those who aren't familiar with them. ColtsScore 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Once the page is unprotected, in a day or so, you will be able to make these changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spin

Thanks for the list of additional articles to look at--I'll give a look, although I'm already half blinded by the glow of the tin foil already just doing the ones I have checked so far! BabyDweezil 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Announcement (Prem Rawat Named Critic)

I closed this case since there has been no activity on it for more than 2 weeks. I felt that this was fair even though we did not reach consensus. If everyone involved wishes to continue the discussion we can consider reopening it.TheRingess (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block Mael-Num

M-N has, without consultation, re-written the lead to Prem Rawat and included at least 4 factual errors and when I pointed out that he'd made several errors continued to revert to include them in the article. He has also inserted his own original research and added a paragraph of extreme criticism. In his three months at Wiki he has been cautioned for incivility twice, cautioned for personal attacks once, blocked for violating 3RR and recently accused me of being a sock puppet and a meat puppet with zero evidence. Momento 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that block was an error, and I offered up a whole mess of evidence on the puppet thing. Mael-Num 10:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil

Hi Jossi. BabyDweezil is introducing OR and deleting well-sourced material on Cult apologist more often than I am allowed to revert it. What to do? Thanks. Tanaats 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to do but to try and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, this is becoming ridiculous trying to find common ground is hopeless in as much as he's ORing the guidelines. Is there no other recourse? Tanaats 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming article vandalism

Dear Jossi, I suggest that before interpreting a blanking as 'vandalism', and reverting the action, you pay a little visit to the article history. Sincerely, --Galahaad 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every Statement needs a citation

Jossi, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a high standard of content on wikipedia, but you have twice interfered with a comment that I have made on The Secret (film) page without justification, I believe. I read the page on verification/citation and I don't see my contribution as falling within any category that would require citation. There is no quote and no risk of plagiarism nor any assertion that this is primary research nor is anyone likely to contest that The Secret has been criticized in the way that I mention. The source of my comment comes from various informal discussions and a weekly discussion group. I don't think these sources are citable, yet I consider them infinitely more credible than Larry King Live and some of the other sources that you let stand. So, I suggest that you reconsider demanding sources for every sentence of an article and instead look at what functions citations tend to serve and see if they are called for in each particular instance. As someone who has done a great deal of academic writing, where rigorous standards of citation are applied, I would say that my contribution would greatly benefit from a citation, but doesn't require one (especially since there is no published source of what I am saying).Herbanreleaf 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf: I invite you to spend some time reading our content policies, as I can see from your comment that you may have misunderstood them. In particular read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Let's see if I have this straight. If I publish criticism of the film on a website or write a letter to the editor in some local paper, then someone else is free to cite me. Unless I go to such lengths, we will have to be limited to authorities such as Larry King Live?!? In other words, no matter how many times something has been spoken orally by academics, diplomats, geniuses, philosphers, and pundits of all sorts, it is not worth mentioning it until some shmoe writes it down or appears on a pop talk show. Good policy? I think not.Herbanreleaf 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Letters to the editor are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and such commentary by "academics, diplomats, geniuses, philosphers, and pundits of all sorts" cannot be cited unless published in a reputable publication. That is the way that Wikipedia works. There are other wikis that do not impose such restrictions, for example Wikiinfo, so you may want to consider contributing there rather than here, if you find our policies to be no good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you please look into this issue. This is regarding the recent edits in Sathya Sai Baba article. Ekantik, is adding unnecessary biased sub categories in the Sathya Sai Baba article under Criticism section. I discussed yesterday in depth in the talk page on why such a sub category is not required. The section heading Criticism itself summarises the views of critics. I don’t have a problem if we add a sub category such as “Criticism By Followers” but the sub category heading “Sexual abuse allegation” is not justified when there is not a single instance / proof of sexual abuse allegation. Even if we look at the contents it does not justify this heading.

Following are the contents.

1)Alay Rahm Case: This was discussed in the Arb.com extensively. This will be rewritten after arb.com following Fred Bauder comment that “It cannot be included because it is almost impossible to determine if this particular person is being truthful.” Fred Bauder 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2)Time article about the death of 3 people: This article talks about guilt by association as pointed by Thatcher and does not justify a separate heading Sexual abuse allegation subsection category.

3)Koert van der Velde, a reporter for Dutch newspaper Trouw, claimed in a critical article that Sathya Sai Baba forbade people to look at the internet.[100]. This is again not a sexual abuse allegation.

4)The Guardian further expressed concerns over a contingent of 200 youths travelling to the Baba's ashram. Again this does not say a particular person was sexually abused it only said it expressed concerns. Expressing concerns is not same as an instance / case of Sexual abuse allegation.

ii) The same guardian says “Sathya Sai Baba has not been charged over old allegations of sexual abuse”. This statement further contradicts creation of a sub category title and does not justify the sub category title.

5)Even the Unesco Warning again talks about a deep concern and does not confirm any particular sexual abuse allegation.

When there is not a single case / valid proof of Sexual abuse allegation then how does it justify to create biased sub category section especially in the biography of a living person? The Criticism section has already been elected for dispute on neutrality. By adding controversial biased Sub Section heading when not required only augments the problems in this article instead of creating better solution to the article.

I had given this detailed explanation in the talk page inspite of this, he keeps adding the Sexual abuse allegation sub category to Criticism section. I don't believe in edit wars. Could you help by looking at this issue.

Wikisunn 21st February 2007

Jossi, please look at Generation Rescue talk page again - we responded to you

Jossi, we feel the newer version of GR is far more content rich, NPOV, and appropriate citations. How do we get this page unlocked if the people who complained are not responding to our recommendations.

Thank you.

SWW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no need to post messages here. I have that page in my watch list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Jossi, I would like to hear your input on this, since you know about it. please take a look at this link: [18] Basically, user 244 made a come back through proxy Ip's and using a blocked sockpuppet account: "Some people" He reverted the article. user TalkAbout and Andries came right after it and TalkAbout, claimed this version as the new version of the article. Admin Thatcher131, supported this. Is this allowed in wikipedia? It is not conflicting with the ArbCom desicion to ban user 244? Thank you for your input on this. Best, avyakt7 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

==Mts0405== is the coolest name eva. Hi jossi not sure why you did a temp block on *Mts0405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user is an obvious vandle only account.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If he returns and vandalizes again we will perma block this user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reward board

Hi Jossi - I discovered the Bounty board today, which gives donations to the Foundation for bringing an article to FA status. This led me to the reward board, where the lead section of the project page gave the impression that donations would be made to the Foundation for other tasks on Wikipedia (e.g., creating new articles). After reviewing the situation, I realized that reward board permits a user to pay a specific editor to perform any task related to Wikipedia. I am surprised as you that this occurs. I revised the lead section to make it clear to others going to the reward board project as to what the project permits: Reward board permits a user to pay a specific editor to perform any task related to Wikipedia. The project survived one MfD. In view of MyWikiBiz's citing the reward board as justifying its business, do you think it appropriate to again list reward board at MfD? -- Jreferee 08:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I would re-list that article on MfD. Count on my support vote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kovas Boguta

I noticed you deleted this article under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). After reading over the deleted page, it seems to me that working for Stephen Wolfram on ideas related to A New Kind of Science qualifies as a plausible assertion of notability. (Admittedly, it's close to my field so I've heard a lot more about the book than most people, but A New Kind of Science seems to have maken a fairly big splash.) Can I ask for your thoughts on this? -- SCZenz 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will undelete so that you can add sources to assert notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources aren't required to assert notability, and I have no personal plans in working on the article. I was asking only for your thoughts of how it fit WP:CSD#A7, which can only be used if the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." It appears to me it had such an assertion, and your statement that sources should be added causes me to worry that you may be interpreting the criterion more broadly than it was intended. Articles cannot be deleted for being unsourced, or for having unsourced claims, or even for being non-notable (which is too subjective, hence the more specific wording of the speedy criterion). Can you please clarify your position on CSD A7 and how this article fit that criterion? Thanks, SCZenz 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be missing some background. Please see the discussions at Talk:Kathryn_Cramer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So I see. I do think, though, that playing strictly by the rules is more important in speedy deletion than almost anywhere else in Wikipedia... because, too often, nobody else checks our work. I don't think the creator having the wrong motivation should be a factor in whether an article qualifies for A7. But I've made my point, and this isn't a big deal, so I'll go on to other things now. ;-) -- SCZenz 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Just note that I speedied it because it was, in my view, not notable. But I agree that we need to apply the proper process. I have placed the article in AfD now, and will be more careful in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated; I agree that it's not-notable, by the way. I'm not usually this much of a process wonk, but speedies hold a special place in my heart because the admin can make the decision alone and without review. -- SCZenz 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfC

Hi. Would you please do me a favor and pop over to Talk:Scientology and celebrities#Request for Comment - Jesse Prince statement and let us know what you think? Thanks --Justanother 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I don't think I can contribute much to that discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Alticor

Hi Jossi!

Please see Talk:Alticor/Archives/2012#Logos. I've restored the logo that you removed, as I think it's perfectly fine under Fair use. The subsidiary companies do not have articles of their own for the most part. Let's discuss further there. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure you can do that with logos. Please discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, see you over there... haven't seen you yet, though. I think the article needs SOME logo, maybe if the composite doesn't work, we go with just the Alticor one... By the by I live in Ada, where their HQ is. ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I wonder whether, as closing admin in AfD for Accusations_against_Israel_of_war_crimes_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada you are happy with what has now happened? I wasn't involved in the debate (nor am in Palestine/Israel in general) but it looks very much to me as though almost all the article content has been lost with a forced redirect and no carry over, despite an AfD which as no consensus pushed toward keep. The merge is also tricky as the article into which it is to be merged is very long with resident editors. I didn't like the way that the "strong merge" steer has been used so far pretty much as a mandate for delete in it. But its really not my fight and if you have a take on it which is that is reasonable I will move along... --BozMo talk 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I also want to know that how can they push the redirect in this way. Is the decision was to redirect? They have protected the article with a redirect. Do you agree with this? -- ALM 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chill, ALM. The protected redirect is for a week because of the edit war; the redirect was pushed through way too aggressively (by several people who had all voted delete, been frustrated and redirect immediately claiming no content worth saving). However BlessSins shouldn't have 4RRed against it. I picked it up on the Admin noticeboard and came to have a look. There isn't a decision on it. (Sorry Jossi I know I shouldn't third party chat on your page but to stop you repeating the obvious.) --BozMo talk 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BozMo and still waiting for reply fom Jossi. I hope that this issue will be solved in a good manner. regards. --- ALM 12:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please post your reply on the talk page of the concerned article (Accusations_against_Israel_of_war_crimes_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada).Bless sins 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Need your help at Generation Rescue again

Recent edits by KevLeich and Hawker Typhoon are attempts to discredit a neutral portrayal. Please help - thanks,

MomToJustin