User talk:Jossi

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #54

“ I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. ” — Woodrow Wilson

28th President of the United States

~ 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.

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.

Contentious/BLP

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 If it's superseded by Jimbo Wales saying "If it's unsourced, and it's a living person, it must come out..."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

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

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

I do read it differently in several places.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see that you, Jossi, have taken the liberty of censoring part of a discussion I had with another editor on my talk-page. You did this with no warning, and no explanation other than to cite WP-BLP- 'Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material'. You removed two things - a link to an external webpage, namely http://hamzen1.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=duh&action=display&thread=1161430405 and a reference made by the other editor to an "obese cult leader", replacing both with "..." (an ellipsis).

Whether you consider the site I linked to be poorly researched or not, you should not have the right to interfere with my communication with another editor in this way. Editors need to refer to other sites for many reasons - for research, to gain another perspective on a subject, even sometimes simply to take a light-hearted break - the latter being my motive for linking to the site in question - a site which does indeed make fun of the "obese cult leader" in question. It is common knowledge among other editors of the article 'Prem Rawat', that you are in fact Mr Rawat's webmaster, and you have declared that you do indeed have a conflict of interest in matters relating to him.

Your censorship of part of my discussion with fellow-editor Mael-Num is quite remarkable. Is this a precedent that you are setting for Wikipedia? Are talk-pages going to be subject to the NPOV rule too? Quite frankly it's ridiculous that you should try and abuse our freedom of speech by removing a description of a notable public figure simply because it doesn't conform with your own inflated opinion of him. Contentious material it may be - to those who share your opinion of Prem Rawat - but since when has that been a criterion of what people are allowed to talk about? Remember it is my talkpage that this is about - not a Wiki article.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we should be free to express those opinions to each other on our talkpages. You seem to think you can take it on yourself to police my communications with a fellow editor in such a high-handed manner, it almost beggars belief!

I request that you restore the passage in question to its original form. Revera 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been four days since my request. In the absence of any action/response from you to my concerns above, Jossi, I have restored the paragraph to its original form myself. Revera 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

warning clarification?

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

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

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

Anon vandal should probably be blocked again

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

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

Golden ratio a featured article candidate

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

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

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)

Jews in apostasy

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

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

Admin Powers/HELP:Bay Area Holocaust Oral History Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

-

Jossi,

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

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

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

Specifically,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel quite strongly the other way.

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

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

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

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

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

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

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

Welcome Template

Greetings, Jossi!

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

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Aha!

That's how it works. I get it.

Thank you kindly.

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

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

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

User 76.174.134.16

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

FoF mediation

Hey there.

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

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

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

External Link Edit

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

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

Blocking

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

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

Guru and Koenraad Elst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fellowship of Friends

Hey there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikiproject spam

Thought you might find this article to be of interest [1]. I hope you keep the conversation going at the project. The language is due for an overhaul. Nposs 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Calligraphy

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

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

40,000

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

ACIM Thanks! and help

Hi Jossi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sylvia Browne merge

Your attention is appreciated here: [2] - Throw 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports prepared for the Congressional Research Service are not government reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder shouldn't be needed

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

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

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

          Thanks,

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

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

Richard Gere

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

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

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

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

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

Question on usage of other user's comments

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

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

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

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

Was my action correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

72.166.78.66 is vandalising again

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

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

Cult list

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

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

Henosis

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

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

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

"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) on 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)

MDS America merge

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

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

IRC cloak request

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