Jump to content

User talk:Jossi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JoeyC5 (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 21 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.


~ Post new messages to the bottom of the page ~
~ Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here ~
~ Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassing me or others ~

Comments which fail to follow these requests may be immediately deleted

Please click here to leave me a new message.

hi!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Coca-cola

actually, jossi. the coca-cola page was hacked and there was no code with the hack on it so i guess it was some like fixed hack thing. sorry you missunderstood.

i have a wikipedia account its ryryion theryes nothing wrong i would never mess wikipedia up its helped me with alot of papers.

thanks

ryan..

(screen name (aol) westoceanlove16)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.183.240 (talk • contribs)

Jossi, please look at Generation Rescue talk page

We think we have materially improved the citation, and that problems have been created by people who violently disagree with Generation Rescue and want a very slanted entry. All we want is a Wiki page that is neutral and presents BOTH sides of the organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

You comments relating to an edit on Leonardo. 1. I bow to your editorial skill 2. I believe you are in error and obviously uninformed on recent theories regarding DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Therefore I would request you retract you comment of Vandalism as it is unwarranted. There was no nonsense in the comments appended. If you still believe there was, please be specific. I thank you for you concern and applaud you contributions but I do not want you to believe there was nonsense or malice. I would be pleased to have had the opportunity to append cites to support my comment had you not voided them. I would hope that actions were not homophobic and assume you are not involved in art history. I am university educated with an art history minor from Columbia University, N.Y. and studied in Italy as well. In any event, best regards. denidoc@gmail.com

Prince Henry

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

professional historian who has corrected Dr. Lisboa's many errors.

Another "Dr" Lisboa on Prince Henry the Navigator complaint

This has nothing to do with the content of the article, but simply the unneccesary insult directed toward me on the talk page. I noticed your post there, and this seems to be the only way of contacting you. I refuse to take abuse from another person, virtual or otherwise. Thank you.

Calligraphy

Hi Jossi. I note tonight that someone put a spam notice at the bottom of the Calligraphy page. I hope it was not you ? I have done most of the editing recently- I have contacted some 3rd parties about their own sites that I have put links to. My judgement is that the assistance and educational value of the ones chosen is significant. There are a number of editing decisions that I have made that exclude content on the basis of it being an invitation for all and sundry to post their own sites or books. I recommend that if someone has a specific objection that they make it public. Otherwise I think we're on the right track. What do you think about the prominent calligraphers list ? I don't think that it is useful and again poses a threat to the credibility of the main site. ayou may wish to read my recent contributions on the discussion board regarding some of the things I have had to correct- one example includes changing a short, direct quotation from a reputable source into a misquotation. Can we have a look at introducing some new images and perhaps removing "Urkunde" ? Please respond on my talk page. Regards.≈ Furminger ≈ 19 April 2007

I did not touch that article for a while. For an guideline on what is acceptable as an external link, see WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

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

Jossi:

I reveiced this message from you:

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

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

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

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

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

(please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~)
Yes, you made that edit without being logged on (see diff] and the source you provided did not match the text you added. If you are not logged, there is now way for others to know that you are not a new user. As for the revert, note that the source says that "apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was "gallant old party." Your text asserted that "actually stood for 'Gallant Old Party.". I have corrected this in the article. In the future, please log on and stay close to the sources you provide. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was quite close to the source without plagiarizing it. And my change does match the source. The bottom line is that the Party itself believes the original meaning of the initials G.O.P. was "Gallant Old Party." However, I will conceed that perhaps, per your note, a better revision would be "apparently stood for Gallant Old Party."
Still, the change has not been made in the article. Taking my edit away, rather than changing it to a better revision (per your thoughts), just stalls progress (especially when you've verified the information via the source). Taking the revision away entirely and going back to the only semi-correct information does little to help both those trying to perfect the article as editors and those educating themselves as readers. A couple of days ago, you wrote on another user's talk page regarding reverts and their resultant edit wars, "going back to a flawed version is, well, flawed." I think it's a good idea to heed your own advice here. Ask123 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask123, have you seen this? Discussion on the talk page of an article, after you have been reverted, is a great way to get a consensus for your suggested change. Lsi john 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)

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

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

In it's 14th January 2000 issue, Tokyo Weekender, an English language bi-monthly free magazine reported on controversial claims made by the Japan Traveller magazine that the Tokyo Classified was "exaggerating their circulation figures" by "claiming 40,000 to 50,000 circulation while attesting that they actually print a fraction of that number." [1][citation needed]

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

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

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

2. On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) page I have the reverse issue, where an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information from Metropolis. The removed claims here: [1] Talk about the claim is here: [2]. In this case my position is that the major exceptional claim is that Baker lied to the public, and that these removed claims support the major claim. In other words, the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right.

If you remember you actually read through the article some time ago [3] and said that these claims were not exceptional. However, the issue keeps coming up. I appreciate your advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hu Sparzilla. Dunno if I will have time to look into this in the next few days. But if I do, I will surely take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bet there's no need to tell you this, but if you have a look at the first issue, you should be aware that the anonymous editor who has been putting that claim in originally referred to the printed publication - which of course should be enough on its own. Also, please see the Metropolis talk page for a really long and informative comment on the Japan Weekender the same editor posted. Thanks in advance Heatedissuepuppet 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, we now only need comment on item 2 above (exceptional claims on Nick Baker page). Your guidance would be most appreciated. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, I opened an RFC on this issue: Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Your comments are appreciated. Sparkzilla 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items of interest

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

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

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

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

  1. Forgive me if this sounds naive, but one of your chief concerns is that, by including a group (e.g., Mormons or Christian Scientists), there is an implied claim that the group is a cult. Justanother suggested that the article qualify its claim, e.g. "Alleged cults and...." (Now I see that Dking also seems to suggest "alleged cults.") What was your response to these suggestions? Provided that the allegations are referenced and duly notable, wouldn't this alleviate any undue implication that the Wikipedia Encyclopedia itself (rather than those making the allegation) considers the group a cult?
  2. Along these same lines, you seem to be concerned about whether allegations against certain groups/people have been given undue weight. (WP:Undue) Would you please clarify which groups/individuals, in this dispute, you believe have not been substantiated as either NRM nor an "alleged cult"? (e.g., Mormons, Christian Scientists, Ayn Rand, William Reich) For instance, I see there are now four sources on Rand, fn 15-18.[4] At first glance, this seems like adequate referencing.
  3. Mr.Z-man raised the question of old references. For instance, if a notable cultural work names XYZ as a cult in 1900, would you object to the inclusion of this naming in the article? Even if XYZ is not a considered a cult today, I don't see why this is objectionable if properly contextualized. E.g., the Mormons were treated like an abusive group and persecuted in the past (due to the 19th C anti-polygamy movement), but couldn't past still be recorded in an encyclopedia?

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

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

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

Vandalism of Oil spill

Thank you for clearing up vandalism done to Oil spill, and for blocking the vandal. However, the reverts you did only reverted to a revision which still contained vandalism carried down from other illegitimate edits. I have reverted to a pretty earlier revision of it. please see [5]. Thank you. Oh, and please reply on my talk page. Thank you.Optakeover 05:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is a school. If it continues we can soft-indefblock and place a {{schoolblock}}. Keep and eye and let me know id it persists vandalizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching it vandalize for days. The guy will just be backing adding his crap tomorrow or the next day, as he's been doing for weeks, even months if you check the history (seems to show only vandalism, and on repeated articles and in the same type). There is plenty of precedent for blocking schools for longer periods of time, as in fact you originally did: {{schoolblock}}. The Evil Spartan 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be one student, and that is why I want to wait and see as I do not want to block the entire school. Next time he does it, we shall permablock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you aware

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

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

Help:Creating Policy

Please reconsider your placement of the proposed tag at the Creating policy page. It has been tagged as guideline since May 2005 [6]. Only in the last week or so has there been objection and an attempt to demote it. Please revert yourself. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assistance

Page deleted and recreated with the {{usernameblock}} only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Though I am not opposed to this myself. It appears that User:Lsi john probably is. I had made my prior request above out of acknowledgement of his frustration and state of upset due to the recent circumstances. But if that is what you feel is best for the page at present, I have no objection. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I e-mailed you, Jossi. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments

I disagree with your behavior that strikes me as a bad faith enforcment of WP:BLP. I will make a complaint about your behavior at the Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard Andries 23:27, 9 May 2007 (U0TC) [7]Andries 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gere

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

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

A note

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

Thanks for the heads up. The block should increase and increase for each new incident, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep an eye out. HerHis recent comments have been troubling, and she's accusing people of lying and other nastiness. >Radiant< 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm a he, and yes, I'm accusing Fnagaton of lying, nothing more. You have a problem with that ? Sarenne 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP:CIV has a problem with calling people liars. >Radiant< 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm accusing him of being a liar so you and the policy have a real problem. Sarenne 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about 3RR

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

Thanks for the welcome. But you didn't answer my question. It is obvious that user Miskin has done more than 3 reverts that had nothing to do with BLP or Vandalism. So what was the reason for no action?(Arash the Archer 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Because all editors involved were actively editing, changing and reverting, and the edits were all different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that blocks for 3RR violation and not punitive, but preventative. I do not see any further editwarring to warrant a block at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
I underestand your second argument but I don't agree with the first one. Since it is obvious that Miskin is pushing his/her POV here. (Arash the Archer 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not to butt in, but I made a comment over there. Talk:Last_stand#Persian_Gate_and_Porus. I hope it sheds some light on the argument and prevents it from getting out of hand. SanchiTachi 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Preventative?

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

I asked the blocking admin for your unblocking on that basis, and after a short exchange we agreed that you may have needed a break in any case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. Though I guess I might have preferred being told nicely to take 24 or be blocked.. with which I would have complied. Convictions are hard to get expunged, and successive penalties don't get shorter. ;) (not that I'm anticipating successive penalties.. but I wasn't anticipating this one either).
And, that being said, though I didn't know the first edit counted, I did technically break the rule. And therefore I have no one to blame but myself. Thanks. Lsi john 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Privacy issue

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

I saw it, but I will not comment as I am involved in editing articles with you and the others in that incident. Let other admins deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't soliciting involvement, just tossing a heads up. Lsi john 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unnecessary escalation?

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

I have emailed you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question in your e-mail. You only tried to intimidate me. Andries 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. And yes, I answered your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will post your e-mail to me here so that everybody can have his or her own judgment about your e-mail to me. Is that okay for you? Andries 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a breach of etiquette. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a far greater violation of etiquette to publicly misrepresent your private communication to me and if I can correct that with publishing our communication then I think that would learn you a lesson not to break etiquette again. Andries 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please retract your comment above? The one that misrepresented is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you insist, this was my message to you:

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

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

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

Thanks for posting the e-mail. Again, I do not think that collaboration is possible when the article oscillates between two highly divergent versions and when both factions are unwilling to use "the other" version as a basis for further improvement of the article. The inability to collaborate justifies mediation. Andries 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to collaborate does not justifies anything, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should I do the extra work of giving exhaustive comments on a very flawed piece of writing when a good piece of writing is already available. I am unwilling to do unnecessary work and have years of my work thrashed for no good reason at all. That is not uncollobarative that is just common sense and practical. Andries 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because that is the way Wikipedia works. Can you please consider that you may be disrupting the collaboration process to make a point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is generally accepted practice and basic politeness everywhere to avoid unnecessary work for others. Wikipedia is not an exception to this rule. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review, which you gladly accepted, says that the article in its previous state was not a "good piece of writing". You keep dismissing points made by third party editors, not only here but everywhere lately. Why do you ask for third party opinions if you are not willing to listen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that the old version was reasonable and that the re-write was worse. I see no contradiction between the GA review and my opinion. I see no good reason to revert to a worse version and wait until it gets better. That is the wrong order. First make something better and then replace the old version with the better version. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that can only be achieved by collaborating on a new version, which you have not done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will start my own new version. I will not try to fix Momento's fatally flawed re-write. Andries 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your "own" version? How that is collaboration, Andries? Are you OK, Andries? Seems to me that you have lost your bearings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ï hereby invite your for collaboration. Andries 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an invitation, Andries. This is a wiki. I would suggest, and I mean this as sincerely as possible, that you take a break and during the break take a hard look at your behavior over the last few days. Do some self-reflection about your motives, your state of mind at this time, and your expectations about this project. I am taking a break as well. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR???

Hello,

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

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

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

[8][9] [10] [11]

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

Unilateral redirect

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

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

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

That is why I asked you first. I will clean up the doubles later. I asked for pp. --Justanother 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask at the WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to fix the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's decide the issue first, no? --Justanother 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

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

Thanks for the thanks

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

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Why have you deleted my question to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the wording of the policy WP:NPA is such that it is clear that it is only intended between Wikipedia contributors. Andries 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already made your points in the noticeboard, that were dully refuted by a number of editors there. Please take it there if you want to pursue this further. Any further comments here will be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome

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

You're very welcome, my friend. I was glad I could help.
Be healthy,
Michael David 11:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jossi, I appreciate your comment about the complexity of the RFC. As you correctly pointed out, it is now very difficult for editors like yourself to make any comment. In fact, I followed the RFC example you gave me a few weeks ago. This is how I originally added it [12]. As you can see the original as posted is quite simple and clear.

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

It's extremely frustrating to go through weeks just to get an answer to two simple questions: 1. are these claims exceptional? (in fact you answered this a long time ago[13] and 2. Do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP?

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

I have simplified the page so that it is very similar to the original RFC that was posted. I hope you will find it now acceptable enough to be able to provide an opinion. Sparkzilla 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, thank you for your comment. although to clarify we are actually discussing TWO articles. The first is an op-ed, where the publisher claimed Baker was lying. The second is a feature article that is a round-up of the case.
The point I am really trying to find out about is -- do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP? For example, say someone is accused of being a murderer in source 1. Source 2 then reports that he is a murderer. We have multiple sources so we can say he is a murderer in WP. Now say that source 3 says he is a murderer that used a knife (and say that source 3 is the only one that says he used a knife). Is it acceptable to say that the murderer used a knife in WP, even though only a single source says so? If you can answer here and I will post the result over to the RFC, that would be great. Sparkzilla 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be extremely useful for all editors if you could confirm whether the claims are exceptional or not. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, David Lyons continues to try to obfuscate the RFC. He is now edit warring on a whole section of claims that are not even in the disputed text. [14] and [15]. Apart from ignoring your advice to simplify the RFC I feel this is highly disruptive, and ask what action can be taken. Sparkzilla 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I saw your note on my talk page.

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

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

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

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

Take care.

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

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

User:Maurauth

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

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

Consider

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

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

Your tagging of my images

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

I was reading some of the book articles you created and saw that forgot to add the source of the image, so I chose to alert you to the fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a lot of work for you to find all of these articles that I had uploaded books for and tag all of them, is all, as opposed to a bot or a different editor that does this for fun, in general, on lots of images, and not just singling out a particular editor, is all. It just appears a certain way to me, perhaps, as petty, sorry if that is not what you intended. Smee 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am sorry if that is your perception. Please do not feel singled out, just thought that you would be interested in fixing these, and avoid problems with future book and video cover uploads. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a lot of time on your part, when normally these things are done by bots or users that really get a kick out of leaving these automated type messages on my talk page, that's all. It was a bit surprising. Smee 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It does not take much time at all. See [16] where you can find all the images you uploaded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But it is still time. Time for you to notice, time for you to check my contributions in particular, as opposed to just images in general, and time for you to tag them all. But no matter, the issue is done. Smee 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Now, it's off for me to go find more reputable secondary sourced citations from which to create/write yet other new articles on books or other interesting notable topics...  :) Smee 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Happy editing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, indeed. I find the search for lots and lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations from different sources, and then the creation/writing of new articles not yet on the Project, to be most therapeutic, especially after other stressful occurences of late related to this project... Happy editing to you as well. Smee 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, being able to put things behind is always a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as is the therapeutic feeling I get from creating new articles sourced to reputable citations. Smee 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Off-topic thought

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

Yes. It is in my bookshelf. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, neat. Have you read it? Smee 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, a while ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did you think of Chapter 2? Smee 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I don't recall that chapter, but I will look it up and respond in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. It has some interesting implications in today's day and age, as compared to the time period in which the contents of Chapter 2 took place... Smee 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FYI

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

New Editors May Need Help

Jossi,

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Wright Again

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

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

Don't understand message

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

List of sovereign states

That page was reverted 3 times by anon users ([17]), yesterday and today using numerical ips. It's hard to believe that they are all newbies. What do you think could be done (except for a full protection which I don't want and don't ask for)? Alæxis¿question? 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mormonism Vandalism

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

Comments in User:Jimbo Wales source

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

That is a user page, and it is commented out. I see no problem with it, whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason for it to be there. It's superfluous and discouraging. That is the problem with it. --Afed 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superfluous? don't think so. Is very much on point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

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

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


IRC cloak request

I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi Thanks. --~ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Thanks

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

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

Article

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

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

Better scan?

I thought I did. I uploaded a better version than the previous one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. As per Fair use, I cannot upload a high-res image. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to upload a "high" res image, just a low res image with just enough quality to read the text at the bottom of the image. Please do this. If not, that's okay, I will at some point soon, but if you did it would be faster. I am sure I could scan an image that is lower than 100Kb that shows the text, when I get a copy of the book handy. Smee 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The text is readable, at least it is in my monitor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not on mine. I see that you are unwilling to upload a higher quality scan, that is unfortunate. I will try to get ahold of a copy of the book for scanning purposes. Smee 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I can provide you with the text, if you want. Just that a higher res image will fail WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload an image with a higher resolution than the current one, that is still of a low resolution. Smee 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That is indeed not needed. The current image is perfectly OK as it pertains to WP:FAIR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. I will find and upload an image with readable text, that still is a low resolution image. Smee 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That was not an opinion, Smee. Why are you pressing on this? I have offered to transcribe the text if that is what you need. What else do you need? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pressing anything. I have made my decision, and will upload a better quality image when I get a chance. It will be useful for the reader, and will still be of a low enough resolution so as to be fair use. As I can see you are getting annoyed for some reason by this, I will not continue to add to this thread any longer. Smee 00:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sure. Whatever suits you, just note that I am not annoyed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded larger image that is readable, sharpened so that is even more readable. Hope it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Jossi, will it be unbecoming to post a photo Gavin Newsom for an other editor to see...before releasing it. I believe the photo is a much better photo than the present one, but would like other editor's opinion. What is the etiquette on these sort of matters? I await your reply.PEACETalkAbout 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload with a different name, and let editors judge which one is better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I upload? PEACETalkAbout 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Upload. The link is on the left navigation bar in all WP pages. Just make sure you provide a source and a license. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The regular place...Ok.Jossi, Listen, the Admin thing is a joke! Honest...lite humour.PEACETalkAbout 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. ≈ jossi ≈, now how do I get input...just slip it in? Replace the other one? Can you tell me? Your "Opinion"? Do, tell.TalkAbout 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the image in the article, and if it sticks, you are done. If you get reverted, discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops

My sincere apologies, jossi. It is easy for me to go several days without thinking to check my email. I understand your concerns, though I'm far too late now to act on them. Please do let me know if there is anything now ongoing that I can help with. ··coelacan 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. All is well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark

Jossi, I'm at 3R and can't edit in Landmark Education anymore. I've requested protection. Can anything be done to stop these two editors from trying to force their 'version' when they cant get a concensus for the edits? The material has been discussed on the talk page and other than those two, I see nobody in favor of including what they're trying to include.

And, they are refusing (or failing) to address the questions and concerns that are being raised. Lsi john 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, rather than address the questions and article content, one of the editors is trying to tie in my original username, as if its relevant. Lsi john 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP:DR. You can start at the WP:MEDCAB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, you can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. I cannot protect it myself because I edited that article in the past. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for PP. I'll research the MedCab procedures. Thanks. Lsi john 16:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please stop filling my talk page with all this unfair copyright stuff. The pictures you just put down are from the Mercedes-Benz Car Configurator, and the picture has no copyright. Please stop filing up my talk page, as I said before.

I doubt that Wjs13 knows what a free image is. GracenotesT § 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked him, and will unblock after he agrees not to upload such images. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt that he had any idea what he was actually doing wrong. It's a bit hard to read our policy on non-free content when a bot is spamming one's talk page :) I do not contest the block, as it was appropriately preventative, but I suppose that's one down from our jargon. GracenotesT § 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd watch him carefully for a while. I don't think that English is his first language.

Your note

Because it's been incorporated into the article; the content has not been deleted. By all means restore the title and redirect it if you want, but it seems pointless. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that a merge is needed. The main article Martin Luther is becoming too big already, and such lists are useful navigational aids. I will restore it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by a useful navigational aid. If the Luther article becomes too long, we can create a Martin Luther (resources) page; at the moment, it's not too long. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit are you talking about? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects and the template. No big deal though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which redirects have I undone? The template I'm only editing (adding works and putting things in alphabetical order), not undoing anything that I recall. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists. I think that the lists of books and films can have their own article, rather than merged into the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can create a Martin Luther (resources) page if you like, as I said earlier. I'm unclear about why there's such a fuss about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said: no big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for MA article

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

--Sefringle 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of the Druids

Thank you. Corvus cornix 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this was your intent, but you full protected rather than semi-protecting. Either the tag or the protection should be changed to match. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Sprotected now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block?

Hello Jossi. I'm sorry to bother, but I just had to drop by and say that I disagree with this block of yours. In fact, I was just about to decline and remove this report from WP:AIV when I discovered that this user had already been blocked! This user made a single vandalism edit today (the last edit being from May 6th), and received a single level 1 bot warning for it. Warning not transgressed, and in fact no further edits were made in the past 3 hours. So why block? Doesn't seem adequate for this situation. Please review. Regards, Húsönd 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jossi. You are currently online but have not yet replied to my comment. If it's okay with you, I shall unblock the user in question shortly. If you don't reply, I shall interpret your silence as "okay". Thank you. :-) Regards, Húsönd 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Go ahead.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive

I've seen a pattern of disruptive editing now, from the same editor, by inserting comments inside another editor's posting. Is this something we keep correcting or is there a guideline against it? Lsi john 02:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline, but I have warned the user twice already. If he continues he could lose his editing privileges for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including the AfD? Or twice in the current discussion page? I've moved his comments once before and he just now put them back in the same place. Lsi john 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption. See WP:TALK. I have informed the user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Lsi john 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help With Harassment from 69.118.129.76

fyi, now that 69.118.129.76—who you have warned in the past—has been blocked from editing the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page, he/she is now harassing me and other editors. unbelievable. —BaseballDetective 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for logo?

There seems to be something strange going on. Why is there one contributor asserting that without identifying a logo as a logo, that Wikipiedia is advertising. Now this person is changing massive amounts of articles claiming: "policy 1st - commercial; - assert facts; - selection & organization of facts". Is it just me that can't quite come to terms why is it so difficult to follow a simple Wikipedia guideline that "No caption needed when a logo is shown in an article about that product or organization -- Wikipedia:Captions#Special situations. The edits by In1984 seem very counterproductive. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Non-tagged images from me

Okay fine delete them. I just wont add anymore pictures just in case this stuff happens again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs13 (talk • contribs)

Great. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with an article

Can you take a quick look at an article for me? It was nominated for deletion and the administrator who nominated it took away the nomination but, did not remove the tag. I'm not sure if this was done by accident or purpose. JoeyC5 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "This Week at Weekender". weekender.co.jp. January, 2000. Retrieved 2007-04-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&oldid=132475882"