User talk:Jossi

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #96

“ 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.

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)

IRC cloak request

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

backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages

how are you, i was at the help desk and couldn't find stuff on taking down a photo just 4.11 Uploading a photo. I wasn't the one who took down the "Kjærlighetspar" photo on the intimacy page, i just signed out of my accout to post a myspace and youtube vandal pic hoping someone would take down all the pics seeing how none of the pics are specific to the intimacy sentences. it worked, but on the Stephan Sinding page the back frame and caption for the pict "Kjærlighetspar" ("Loving couple") is still up just like on the intimacy article. i think the pics were deleted by you since User:Jossi was the last undo, and a administrator. can you send some pointers on how to get rid of that backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages and not just take them down Please.

pict frame backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages

Stephan Sinding pages, thanks.

sorry for that long letter since you werent even the one who undid the last message. i didnt even notice the Click here to ask your question about editing Wikipedia on the New contributors' help page. if your the one who got intouch with User:Ziji to take down the back pict frame on the Stephan Sinding pages, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.95.66 (talk • contribs)

How do I ask for protection on (a) page(s)?

How do i ask for protection on a page?

Please reply on my talk page

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless ^{Type words!}.

Article Protection

Please can you justify how issues regarding the trademark is relavant to the Royal Bengal Airline article? Please could you very kindly review this again and cut this out? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airphantom (talk • contribs)

Can you please help me - again

Hi. On the Henry Keogh page there has been a debate going on about that there was no citing on whether he attended the school. One has been made, but how do we know that she isn't just lying to make sure it stays on? Surely there must be more than just writing something down and giving it an un-proven cite and that makes it able to be kept on. Can you explain to me more on that situation of whether you can just write it down or you have to actually have physical proof.

Sorry, some people must think they are you as they are asking a question I am asking you.

my edit to 2005

Might I point out the line concerning "Berticus the great"?

Your welcome is welcome

SociableLiberal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for saying hello.

deleted help page

hi,

I was reading something on help page. After few minutes i went to have coffe some body have deleted or edited the content in my help page and saved the page how can i get back that content. Please help me in doing this. Thanks and regards, Y.Naganaresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naganaresh (talk • contribs)

Mean Red Spiders

All the information is true.

David Humphreys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashumphreys (talk • contribs)

OTRS action

Hi - I'm a little confused by your removals on Gorilla Repertory Theatre Company. I looked at the OTRS page, and I'm not seeing any vandalism or anything derogatory in what was removed. I believe everything was properly cited and true, as far as I know. The changes seem to be to emphasize that the company is currently in operation, but that was already stated in the article. The information removed mentions that the company was on hiatus for a few years, which is true. Is there any way for you to explain? I understand that whatever email was received must remain confidential, but surely we don't just remove verified info because somebody asked us to. --Brian Olsen 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was my call, given the complaint made at OTRS. I do not think that the text I changed and the short text I deleted has any negative impact on the article. If you think otherwise, please comment in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I also see in your user page that you worked with that company in the past, and that you state that you have tried to remain neutral in editing that article, which it is appreciated. Still, it would be advisable for you to refrain from re-adding that material, given the complaint. If you want material re-added, please provide a rationale in talk and I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All righty - I've placed my concerns on the article's talk page. I am indeed a former company member of Gorilla Rep. My concerns were that I might end up with a positive bias, so I guess I'm surprised that someone is complaining about something I wrote painting the company in a negative light, or giving false info (I assume). Please take a look - while my edits could certainly have done with some improvement, I really do think deleting the info has hurt the article. --Brian Olsen 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on the talk page (just notifying you here, in case you're not watching that page). --Brian Olsen 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback by your response to my comments - I was attempting to wheedle out areas where I may have inadvertently strayed from the sources, and you simply respond by warning me not to stray from the sources. Also, the warning to avoid editorializing concerns me, as I honestly don't believe I've done that. I understand my frustration comes partly from the fact that you obviously can't reveal what was in the complaint, but I'm honestly trying to improve the article, and I feel like I'm being accused of improper motivation. I'm going to ask another OTRS volunteer to take a look at this situation - would you please provide the ticket number on the talk page for that article? (I don't really know what that is, but the OTRS page indicates that it's necessary.) --Brian Olsen 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Regardless of the OTRS complaint, I would have acted the same way without the complaint, had I come across that article of my own volition. Improve the article if you wish, but stay close to the source and without interpreting them. Added OTRS ticket to article's talk page≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I've posted a message at the WikiProject Theatre talk page asking someone to adopt the Gorilla Rep article. Your comment suggesting I was editorializing in my edits still has me concerned, and I want to stay above board with everything. --Brian Olsen 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Su-Jada

Both Su-Jada and Tilman have broken 3RR on that article. If one of them is blocked, I think the other should be as well - Tilman shouldn't get special treatment just because he was the first one to file a report. I was thinking that rather than blocking both of them, which would prevent the discussion from continuing, it would be better to protect the article. There's ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, and now S-Jada's side has been forced out. The block gives an unfair advantage to one side of the debate, which isn't supposed to be what 3RR is for.

I was about to protect the article and say this same thing on the 3RR noticeboard, but I had an edit conflict with you. So what do you think? Would you be willing to unblock that user and protect the article instead, so the discussion can continue? Kafziel ^Talk 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Either unblock Su-Jada and protect the article or block the other user. I will not object to either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock and protect, as long as that's cool with you. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you are doing on the Diocese of Shrewsbury page. I have spent my morning very slowly updating it to bring it up to date only to find you have removed whats taken me the best part of an hour setting up new tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.119.140 (talk • contribs)

Honest mistake, sorry. I have restored your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you check...

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_regarding_source_at_Right_to_bear_arms. It seems similar to what you answered there in the section above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On user Mario scolas and the Laurette Onkelinx article

Just google Please, just google to search for information on reliable web sites. I'm sure you will find the confirmation. Know also that user 'Mario scolas' is a member of the SP (google too for that, find http://www.psmolenbeek.be/Liste.htm and scroll down to see his name). Everything in this article on Onkelinx is about FACTS. One can think that some information is too much about only a part of Onkelinx's career and about her private life. Nevertheless I think the visible and known link between a minister and criminals matters. An article about the painter Michael Borremans (not my article) has been condamned because it was an article based upon information from his gallery (no objective information) and that is right to me. If Mario Scolas, a member of the socialist party in Belgium, a party overtly linked with criminals, maffia and Islam terrorists (pour les besoins de la cause), can write an article about Onkelinx, ommitting everything in the story that does not fit, why shouldn't nazi's write the article on Hilter or why shouldn't the head of Dunlop write the article on rubber ? I'm sorry to say I think it's a shame that you dared to erase all biographic information in this article. It can be seen as a terrorist act.

I have a subscription on www.mediargus.be. You can find this article in the Belgian magazine Le Vif/L'Express, the most important weekly magazine in Belgium for the French-speaking. You will find the story about Guenned.

"Puissance Onkelinx

La fille d'ouvrier au sourire facile a grimpé tous les échelons. Elle en impose grâce à une force de travail incontestable, à des convictions profondes et à des appuis solides. Parce qu'elle aime ça, dominer. Portrait à son image, sans chantilly

Pas besoin de bouquin Pragmatique, pas romantique

Depuis près de vingt ans, Laurette Onkelinx affiche son sourire en politique comme Elio Di Rupo brandit le n£ud papillon. Il est de toutes les saisons. Elle le met à toutes les sauces. C'est son arme anti-cynisme, qui l'empêche de mal vieillir. La vice-Première ministre s'en sert pour séduire, convaincre, fuir en douce, masquer son embarras ou bluffer un adversaire. Elle peut vous jouer un vilain tour, dit-on, sans même arrêter de vous sourire. « J'ai pris l'habitude de ne plus jamais m'asseoir à ses côtés lors d'un débat télévisé, témoigne une "victime". Face à la caméra, Laurette Onkelinx, tout miel, pose la main sur votre bras en se penchant légèrement vers l'avant. D'un ton paternaliste, dominateur, en fait, elle veut gentiment indiquer que vous n'êtes pas à la hauteur... »

En Belgique, si on exclut les quelques machos de service croisant le fer à la Rue de la Loi, personne d'autre ne maîtrise aussi bien la norme de la force qui régit la politique. Une source d'ennui pour quiconque s'autoriserait à toiser ce petit bout de femme qui ferait le bonheur des photographes de mode. Quand elle a débarqué pour la deuxième fois au gouvernement fédéral, en 1999, on raconte que Laurette Onkelinx grimpait quasi physiquement sur la table pour imposer ses vues, « son » socialisme. Face à des « grandes gueules » comme Guy Verhofstadt ou Louis Michel, parti à la Commission européenne, elle a rapidement haussé les décibels pour indiquer de quel bois elle se chauffait : certaines âmes sensibles gardent un souvenir troublé de ces coups de colère assortis de jurons grossiers, mâtinés d'une pointe d'accent liégeois. « Je sais, je suis capable de me transformer en sauvage pour défendre mes idées », admet-elle.

Bien entendu, le téléspectateur moyen ne perçoit aucun de ces « talents » cachés. A la scène, l'avenante Laurette n'est plus la négociatrice rude et implacable qui arpente les coulisses de la décision. Sa maîtrise de soi est impressionnante. Elle en joue d'ailleurs habilement, comme pour démontrer à ses alter ego son intense sérénité et sa capacité permanente à élever son niveau d'exigence. Qui, donc, a jamais vu un seul passage en télé où la Bruxelloise d'adoption serait apparue décontenancée ? Face aux projecteurs, même en cas de crise, Laurette Onkelinx refuse généralement la polémique. Elle évite de balancer des « piques » contre un collègue si elle craint que cela ne puisse la desservir à terme. Mais elle n'en pense pas moins. Malheur aux fragiles...

Ce côté dure à cuire, l'ancienne patronne de la Communauté française le cultive depuis son passage à l'enseignement, de 1993 à 1999. Pendant des mois, les mesures d'économie de la ministre Onkelinx sont sèchement combattues par les syndicats d'enseignants (lire p. 19). Le face-à-face est viril. Onkelinx campe sur ses positions. A la télévision, elle sourit, un peu crispée, en penchant légèrement la tête sur le côté : je vous ai compris mais je ne céderai pas. Le conflit s'envenime, des opposants dérapent : le mari d'origine marocaine de la ministre (elle s'est remariée depuis avec l'avocat Marc Uyttendaele) fait l'objet d'insultes racistes ; ses enfants sont harcelés dans la cour de récré. Mais Onkelinx fait front. « C'est le pire souvenir de ma carrière, dit-elle encore aujourd'hui. Nous avons dû regrouper les lits à l'arrière de notre maison. Dehors, des gens nous balançaient des boules de neige contenant des morceaux de fer. La haine se lisait dans leurs yeux. J'ai tenu bon car ces économies dans l'enseignement étaient indispensables. J'ai voulu me prouver que je pouvais résister à cette furie. » Une manière de couper le cordon ombilical avec son syndicaliste de père, Gaston Onkelinx, son tuteur, sa conscience ?

Assurément, cette épreuve de force à l'enseignement est l'acte fondateur de la « dame de fer » Onkelinx, courageuse et opiniâtre. Son image s'est construite sur cet événement. Elle lui colle à la peau. Ce fut l'occasion de vérifier - aussi - qu'en politique il faut aimer la solitude. Président du PS à l'époque, Philippe Busquin n'a jamais porté l'ambitieuse Laurette dans son c£ur. En l'envoyant au casse-pipe de l'enseignement, on chuchote que Busquin espérait qu'elle s'y brûlerait les ailes. Après coup, Laurette Onkelinx ne lui a jamais pardonné son courrier électoral aux enseignants : pour récupérer la sauce, le président du PS indiquait qu'il n'aurait pas agi, lui, de la même manière.

Laurette Onkelinx a déboulé sur terre le 2 octobre 1958, à Ougrée. La banlieue ouvrière de Liège-la-rouge, ses corons, ses usines qui tournent encore à plein régime. Le décor est planté. Le Flamand Gaston y a émigré en 1950 en provenance du Limbourg, en même temps que ses parents ouvriers. Il y sera délégué syndical au moment des grandes grèves, puis échevin à Ougrée, parlementaire sur ordre d'André Cools et bourgmestre de Seraing après la fusion des communes. A ses côtés, Laurette, ses quatre frères et sa s£ur vont connaître une éducation stricte. Dans la maison familiale, on ne rit pas tous les jours. Liège est désormais à feu et à sang. Cockerill licencie à tour de bras. Des manifestants balancent des pavés dans le centre-ville. « Certains doivent lire des bouquins pour comprendre le cadre collectif des luttes sociales, commente Laurette Onkelinx. Moi, je sais ce que c'est. J'ai vu ces chômeurs paumés que mon père recevait à la maison. J'ai vu comment s'organisait le combat pour la solidarité et contre le racisme ordinaire. » L'aînée des deux s£urs va assumer pleinement ce déterminisme social. En deux temps. Elle est la seule à entreprendre des études - ce sera le droit, à l'université de Liège. Elle se rêve en savante, avide de connaissance. Elle se moque de ce professeur d'université qui estime que « son manque d'éloquence trahit ses origines sociales ». Puis l'avocate aux dents longues découvre sur le tard la fibre politique. Parce que ses convictions ne lui suffisent plus : elle veut être concrète. Députée en 1987, ministre dès 1992, Laurette Onkelinx peut remercier ses deux parrains en politique, André Cools et Philippe Moureaux. Dès ses débuts, « cette fille au sourire si facile » accepte le combat à mains nues. Une constante au cours de sa phase liégeoise : ses meilleurs ennemis se trouvent dans son propre parti. Le ton est donné à l'occasion de sa première campagne. Onkelinx prône « l'intensité dans l'action » censée ramener le PS au pouvoir. Son camarade Jean-Maurice Dehousse suggère plutôt de (lui ?) « résister ». En fait, cette Liégeoise pur sucre, fougueuse et passionnée, réussira partout sauf... à Liège. Sans surprise, en 2001, dix ans après l'assassinat non élucidé de Cools, elle jettera l'éponge sans jamais avoir pu dompter l'appareil socialiste dans la Principauté, livrée à la guerre des clans. Elle se réfugiera à Bruxelles, près de Moureaux. Trop heureuse d'abandonner les Dehousse, Happart et même Daerden qu'elle a toujours détestés. Une ombre noire à son tableau de chasse.

Que reste-t-il aujourd'hui de son socialisme populaire, hérité en droite ligne d'une figure paternelle quasi héroïque ? « Laurette Onkelinx ne parle pas seulement le socialisme, elle est viscéralement socialiste », convient un ministre d'un autre bord politique. Nul ne pourrait lui contester cette authenticité. La chef de file des ministres socialistes au gouvernement fédéral est fière de ses racines, sûre de ses convictions - elle y tient comme à la prunelle de ses yeux. Elle prétend se battre dans un monde de brutes pour davantage de justice sociale. Elle est très attachée au bien public, au point d'être parfois qualifiée de rigoriste ou de janséniste, ce qui a de quoi rassurer après l'automne des scandales liés aux abus de pouvoir. « C'est du socialisme au quotidien, pas à pas, sans chantilly », dit un proche. Car la vice-Première ministre n'est pas la révolutionnaire qu'elle rêvait d'être. Remettre l'école sur les rails, gérer le département de l'Emploi quand l'économie patine, reprendre la Justice en main après Marc Verwilghen : les chantiers majeurs de la ministre au long cours l'ont inscrite dans le réel. Elle n'est pas une romantique, mais une pragmatique. « Je préfère marquer des buts plutôt que de chanter béatement la révolution », admet-elle, avec une pointe d'agacement dans la voix. Du reste, elle assume tout. Jusqu'à la cohabitation « contre nature » avec les libéraux (la formule lui revient, prononcée dès l'automne 2003). « C'est dans le rapport de force qu'on voit la coalition idéale », complète-t-elle. On croirait entendre Elio Di Rupo ou Guy Spitaels, les hérauts du socialisme du possible. Sans doute est-elle plus progressiste que Di Rupo sur les thèmes socio-économiques. Ses victoires en faveur des plus faibles sont nombreuses. C'est son fonds de commerce, son héritage familial. En revanche, son réflexe a toujours été moins naturel lorsque son parti ou le gouvernement ont abordé la question des libertés individuelles. Abolition de la peine de mort, dépénalisation partielle de l'avortement ou de l'euthanasie, mariage homosexuel..., Laurette Onkelinx avoue à chaque fois avoir hésité. Une question de priorités, dit-elle. « Au début, je considérais que c'était un luxe. J'y suis arrivée par cheminement personnel. »

Avec ses (presque) quinze printemps de ministre au compteur, Laurette Onkelinx est désormais à la tête d'une redoutable armada (lire l'encadré p. 17). Une centaine de personnes travaillent à son cabinet, une dizaine de « cerveaux » vivent cachés à l'Institut Emile Vandervelde (IEV), le bureau d'étude du PS, et tous sont priés de suivre le rythme endiablé de la ministre, infatigable bûcheuse - les mauvaises langues estiment qu'elle a besoin de cette frénésie pour pallier le chouia de génie politique qui lui manquerait. L'entreprise Onkelinx est une affaire qui tourne. Une véritable machine de guerre. L'Ecolo Isabelle Durant en garde un souvenir amer. De 1999 à 2003, elle s'est fait littéralement broyer par Onkelinx et les siens. Dans ce gouvernement arc-en-ciel des contraires, unissant libéraux, socialistes et écologistes, la locomotive d'un PS affaibli par les urnes souhaitait ardemment démontrer qu'elle restait le maître achat de la gauche. Et qui donc était cette petite infirmière venue de nulle part ? Malheur pour Durant : elle avait l'outrecuidance de contraindre Onkelinx au partage du titre de première femme à accéder au poste de vice-Première ministre du pays. Tout y est donc passé. Onkelinx débarquait avec des notes complètes là où Durant était outillée de papier brouillon. Onkelinx nouait des alliances opportunes avec les libéraux pour brouiller les pistes. Onkelinx laissait Durant s'empêtrer sur le chantier de la SNCB ou sur celui des vols de nuit, jurant ses grands dieux qu'Ecolo seul manquait de loyauté. Etc. Car quand Laurette Onkelinx est lancée, rien ne l'arrête. Pas question pour un ministre socialiste de lui faire de l'ombre - pas même l'expérimenté Charles Picqué, reparti la queue entre les jambes au gouvernement bruxellois ! Pas question d'improviser le moindre détail de sa communication politique. La pasionaria socialiste contrôle tout. Y compris ses présences médiatiques. Certains de ses effets d'annonce ne manquent pas de culot. Ainsi, en 2000, en dévoilant son plan « Rosetta », censé mettre des milliers de jeunes au boulot, elle avait briefé quelques journalistes en les priant instamment de ne pas recouper l'information. Elle voulait que ce soit « son » coup et qu'ils répercutent religieusement la bonne parole. Un demi-succès, pour une fois.

Même Elio Di Rupo est sous le charme de la puissante dame. Il lui laisse les coudées franches, pariant qu'elle lui sera d'une fidélité totale. Etoiles montantes du PS des années 1990, les deux ténors actuels du parti ont implicitement signé jadis un pacte de non-agression. Ce ne sont pas des intimes, mais ils sont complémentaires. Ils ont construit leur carrière en bonne intelligence, en se partageant les influences. Le séducteur Di Rupo ratisse large et engage son charisme. Gestionnaire patentée, désormais incontournable, Onkelinx est très appréciée des militants. Comme Di Rupo, la néo-Bruxelloise a évité toutes les chausse-trapes des « affaires ». Parce qu'elle a un sens aigu de la vertu ? Parce qu'elle n'exerce qu'un seul mandat, ce qui est particulièrement rare et respectable ? Seul son c£ur gros comme un pamplemousse pourrait un jour lui jouer de sales tours. Par amour, sans doute, elle a recyclé son premier mari - Abbès Guenned - au sein même de son cabinet ministériel. L'homme la conseille pour des dossiers relatifs à la Communauté musulmane. Il a été suspecté de trafic de drogue ainsi que d'usage irrégulier de passeport diplomatique à la fin des années 1990. Par amour, assurément, Laurette Onkelinx refuse de demander à son second mari, l'éminent juriste Marc Uyttendaele, qu'il n'interfère plus dans ses affaires politiques. Lui intervient quand il le souhaite pour conseiller aux partis francophones telle ou telle attitude sur le front institutionnel. Onkelinx n'en a cure. Elle semble décidément sûre d'elle. Au point d'envisager bientôt une nouvelle montée en puissance. A la présidence du parti, elle serait enfin seule aux commandes : il n'est pas sûr qu'elle en rêve, mais c'est son destin de femme puissante. l"

© 2006 Le_Vif_Express

Publicatie: Le Vif Express / Le Vif/L'Express Publicatiedatum: 17 maart 2006 Auteur: Ph. E.; avec D.K. et M-C.R.; Pagina: 16 Aantal woorden: 2441"

You can check the story here. Please don't have too much confidence in people like Mario scolas who are willing to do ANYTHING not for Socialism, not for the working claas, but for the interests of a CLUB organised as a POLITICAL PARTY.--BogaertB 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laurette_Onkelinx" --BogaertB 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jossi, the main point of the BLP drama between these two users is the Guenned story., not the other criticism (which I agree now, was also badly source, but that could be improved esaily). Of course, it is clear that the Guenned source quoted by Bogaert is anti-Onkelinx and that it omits that Guenned, who is a Belgian of Moroccan descent living in Belgium was suspected of drug trafficking by a former MOROCCAN government for political reasons (he worked to break the control of that Moroccan government over the votes of Moroccans in Belgium).

As for the rest of the drama, someone ought to tell Mario scolas that it is a very bad idea (and even hurts his case!) when he deletes comments by BogaertB. I will try to do that myself. --Pan Gerwazy 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a large passage of text marked "© 2006 Le_Vif_Express" should not be re-posted on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, this long passage should be replaced by a link for discussion purposes. Until(1 == 2) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, Jossi for putting all this on your talk page) I had not noticed that copyright. Well, I do not think BogaertB wants to put the entire Vif text, he wants to put back the text about Guenned as it existed before (and which I copy dited before, by the way - to delete everything that was too obviously libellous). The Vif article being obviously anti-Onkelinx makes it a partisan source as well. In any case, we have a WP:UNDUE problem on the article: too much emphasis on criticism, and if the original Guenned passage is restored, too much emphasis on a story which is about a controversial ex-husband. For instance, there is nothing at all about Onkelinx's unsuccessful attempt to become mayor of Schaerbeek and the repercussions of its failure (the Greens were thrown out of a number of coalitions elsewhere in the Brussels area). That was the last time LO came in the Belgian news nationwide. I have no problem with a sentence (perhaps under "private life") saying "LO used to be married to Guenned, her counsellor on Islamic affairs and a controversial figure because a former right-wing Moroccan government indicted him on drug smuggling, a charge which was dropped by the present government of Morocco". (that does not include the fact that he was a Belgian national, and so could not be extradited, but the suggestion that he should have been extradited but was not because of LO's intervention, was OR already anyway). When I find the Humo article, more could be added, but again, there is an awful danger of WP:UNDUE here.

The problem with the two users inserting and deleting (until recently, the page has been protected) seems to be personal as well, with the two not only knowing each other in real life (as political enemies) but even being directly at odds. According to this (sorry all this is in Dutch) one guy has for some time been trying to get his aging mother committed to a lunatic asylum, while the other guy is preventing that as a civil servant working for the town administration of Molenbeek, claiming that the lady is of sound mind and the only problem is nobody cares about her anymore. Unfortunately, most of what BogaertB says about Mario Scolas seems to be true (he has vandalized a lot recently), but a lot of BogaertB's name calling still falls under personal attack as well. Calling someone an antisemite for wanting to delete an article about someone with a Jewish name (Maarten Rudelsheim) whom I personally had never heard about, is just one example. Both users should be warned about edit warring and personal attacks and Mario Scolas should be warned to no longer vandalize to talk pages. If they persist in their behaviour, they should be banned. --Pan Gerwazy 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I just have your comment about this.

Hi, I sent this to Kusma about an ongoing argument that she is half-involved in about whether a criminals name should be put on a schools article, which has now been blocked. Below is what I sent:<blockquote. Hi, I'm Wjs13 that person who seems to be fighting an ongoing battle with some other un-signed up user. Can I please ask for the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page to be unblocked. I can't work out on the List of page's to be protected thing how to get the page unblocked, or protest it. However, I only want it to be unblocked if that other unknown user stops polluting a page with the murderers on the alumni. The school has nothing to do with it other than the fact he is known to have attended the school for several years. It looks a bit weird going to that page and seeing that it is blocked for a dispute which clearly is just an argument that everybody who visits the page seems to be joining in, and people don't need to be told that a school article is having an argument against it on whether a murderers name is allowed to be on it!

I can't talk to that other person who keeps editing those articles and putting those facts that I clearly am not happy with since she/he doesn't want to. Can you please leave a message - I am consulting you about this since you are the only admin who probably has heard about this.

I'm getting angry as the unknown user seems to be not wanting to discuss it and prefers to just change them instantly - she/he is treating it like this place is Fort Knox.

I would like the Saint Ignatius College, South Australia page unblocked because it seems a bit strange that people are arguing about a school article - maybe if the actual tag that it is blocked can be removed and make the fact it is blocked hidden? Kusma, from all the last times I have consulted her and whoever I so called consult the other user decides to just go and cry to them. I really don't know what to do, can you help at all?

Wjs13 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Can you please respond on my talk page

self published sources

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources."

stop removing sections without discussing them on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.208.156 (talk • contribs)

Exactly. Please do not re-add material that violates policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Need some help here

Why is CJCurrie permitted to keep the original non-neutral edits? And isn't he in violation of the 3RR rule if he pushes it one more time? MaxForce 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Morgan

You removed a bunch of info, but cited WP:BLP; however this is a fictional character and I dont think BLP applies here ;) That said, that info needed to be removed anyways because it is completely uncited Corpx 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I took notice of that later on (lol!) but decided to keep the removal because it was lengthy and comnpletely uncited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

You posted on my talk page that I vandalized the article Kakashi Hatake, when, in fact, I *unvandalized* it. If you check the history, I undid that vandalism. Winbots 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologized for my mistake in your talk. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes :) Winbots 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

False Warning?

Is there a reason you warned Winbots? ~ Wikihermit 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken identity. I will apologize to Winbot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• RC patrol is fast paced. I've done it myself more than once. - Crockspot 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

yep... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've done it too. ~ Wikihermit 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert on my user talk page

Hi, you reverted my cleanup on my own user talk page. I went through the issues people posted on it and checked out the pages they mentioned. Once I was done, I cleaned it up (did so because one of the old messages there had already been fixed and I forgot to erase and ended up double-checking it). Is there a problem in cleaning up one's own user talk page? Thanks for any directions, I'm not a major wikipedia contributor by any means, but I try to help when I can. -- LodeRunner 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not any references tag" on Armstrong page

-Jossi, this article had seven good references, and is now up to thirteen. Should we still have that tag? What about this sort, which I've seen before: "This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes"

Jebbrady 07:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I will respond in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alterego269 continues personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

On July 18, you blocked User:Alterego269 for 31 hours for incivility and disruption. If you look at Special:Contributions/Alterego269, you will see he has not changed his poor behaviour on Wikipedia. He has continued to erase every single message and warning on his talk page, falsely accuse other editors of vandalism or harassment, make personal attacks, and yell (type in caps) in several edit notes. I figured I'd email you directly instead of posting on the admin noticeboard. Spylab 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kafziel already blocked this user for 1 week for disruption. Enjoy the peace.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Thanks

Kind of amazing how old this material must be, with all the strange formats. We'll see what can be done... Cheers, Mackan79 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at consensus-building

In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing#Trying_to_establish_some_common_ground. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sada Abe

Hi, Jossi. I noticed your tagging the Sada Abe article for references yesterday. I also saw that the article was badly in need of sourcing and other work, and, as it happened, was busy at work on the article, offline, yesterday. I've begun a substantial rewrite/expansion of the article. There may still be a couple of unreferenced bits, and the sourcing I've done so far is heavily reliant on one book. I just wanted to let you know I'm still working on it, have located a couple more sources, and will use them to diversify the citations, and fill in sourcing where it is still lacking. Regards. Dekkappai 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Thank you for the decision not to block; but what edit warring is going on at Monarchy in Canada? The process hasn't been very congenial, certainly, but it seems to me that the issues have, none-the-less, been resolved. Or is this a pre-emptive measure? Just curous. --G2bambino 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors were reverting each other, so that was the basis for either block or protect. I chose the latter. If editors feel ready to resume editing, place they can place a request to unprotect a WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Relatives of Harry Potter

Hi Jossi, I'm wondering if you can do me a favour? I recently added Relatives of Harry Potter to my watchlist and since the release of Deathly Hallows it's become a nightmare. It's not so much that there's vandalism but there is an extreme level of good-faith edits by anon users which are just plain wrong - either factually incorrect, POV or OR. I wondered if you'd consider semi-protecting the page for a couple of weeks? I think this could deter a lot of the less-committed anon editors as they'd have to wait and go through the user creation process and the rest would hopefully get an account, wait and be open to taking instruction and reading some policies. Thanks Aula^TPN 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected for 10 days. Please welcome newbies and encourage them to edit judiciously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi, I surely will. Aula^TPN 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert

Just thought I'd drop a quick note, it seems my edit may have crossed with yours. The Sara Gilbert claims that were being added are completely valid and true (she's very open about it evidently, from my quick google search I just did), they were just unsourced and uncited. I've added a number of sources to that WP:BLP inquiry if someone wants to drop them into her article. (I still manage to mess up references, lol. It would take me a lot longer to add them, I'm sure.) :) ^Ariel♥Gold 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If there are good sources available, by all means add them. Just make sure that the sources are solid. For example mdb.com is not considered to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now, although I could have sworn I'd run into it being used as reference before, although I can't remember where. I did a simple search of "Sara Gilbert Melissa" and google popped up thousands of things, I only included a few, but it seems those too, are not "viable" resources. I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes "viable" resources online, but as with everything else, I'll just keep digging into the policies to try to figure it out. Thanks for checking! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really. You have all the info you need at WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) That link helps. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong deadline

Dear Jossi,

(I'm posting here because I wanted to make sure you see this posting straitway--there is some urgency...)

The article is up to thirty citations and is moving fast to completion but there's some more to do. Lisasmall put up a post on July 30 asserting the deadline you gave for adding citations was "on or about July 31. That doesn't sound right; Eight days ago, your posting had said

"Would a couple of weeks be enough? Material that is not sourced, cannot remain in an article for long, if challenged..."≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give less that the two weeks you had mentioned. This coming Sunday is the one day free of obligations for me this week, and by late that night I should have all the citations.

I've read all the sections carefully and their is nothing questionable factually--it's just a matter of looking up page numbers and writing out the citations. There is no way for Lisasmall to challenge anything in the article, she has admittedly never read any books by or about Armstrong.

In the meantime please note in your quote above, where it was stated "Material that is not sourced, cannot remain in an article for long, if challenged." Only one editor is driving this controversy, and she isn't challenging the veracity of what is there--there is no way she could fact check as she admittedly just discovered Armstrong's existence recently.

Jebbrady 08:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

hi Jossi

Hi, if you have time can you have a peep at the Potter's House page. I noticed you did some editing there and since then user Darrenss, who is a fomer church member, continues to delete links and make the page as negative as possible. He also goes through and edits against anything to do with the church always in a negative way, like "Wayman Mitchell" and "Harold Warner" etc. I suppose this is bias as most other church groups are alowed to have articles. Anyway just thought I would drop you a line and point that out. Cheers Sapienz 11:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

David Vitter tagging

Could you possibly give me some direction on this matter -- I abhor and avoid edit warring. On David Vitter, THF, author of Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems, tagged the page as {{unbalanced}} and then as {{npov}}. At Talk:David Vitter#unbalanced tag and Talk:David Vitter#NPOV tag I began discussions to determine what his concerns were. After citing the authority of Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and another essay, he stated that his concern was that the lack of biographical detail was dwarfed by the controversy section, not the controversy section itself. So I agreed to tag the two biographical sections with {{expand}} and {{npov}} but then he insisted that the entire article continue to be tagged. I again asked for specifics why he wanted to tag the entire article (see my last paragraph at Talk:David Vitter#NPOV tag). Today, he a) put back the article POV tag and added {{unbalanced}} tag, so now the article is "littered" with 6 tags and b) accused me of "vandalism" -- that I was "forbidden" from removing the article-wide tag (vs. the 2 section tags). From my perspective, my objective has been to identify his concerns and remedy them so that these tags could be temporary. He characterized my approach negatively at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#"last resort" bemoaning how he had to keep quoting "policy" (such as his essay) to get me to agree to a compromise -- a compromise that never materialized. I am feeling a bit bullied. I think my record would show I work well in a consensus environment. However, feel free to set me straight -- should I just stand back and not worry about this? Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to splatter so many tags in one article. I have consolidated the tags using the {{articleissues}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That guy was pissing me off. On the closing templates, just to clarify, use the long template before the section header, and the short template after the last comment. - Crockspot 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add my thanks for closing that one as well the other one. Much appreciated. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonel, the first sentence actually refers to the Richard Rossi situation. - Crockspot 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've revised my comment accordingly. The gratitude stands, of course! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do if no response to Rfc/user?

Hi Jossi,

What happens if the focus of an Rfc/user fails to respond to it? This Rfc/user was filed two weeks ago [[1]]. I know the user saw it because he immediately went in and tried to change the header [[2]]. On July 9th he blanked his user page and posted a note saying he was out of town for a few months, but then on July 14th and 15th he worked in earnest on the Sahaj Marg page, participated on some talk pages on July 16th, and then changed the Rfc/user page on July 17th, so he seems to be around.

I guess it's no big deal if he doesn't respond if he is happy with the articles in question.

My concern is that he has repeatedly made references to having "infinite patience" -- which sounds vaguely like a threat to me. (If you think I'm being paranoid please say so, but he makes this statement with reference to Sahaj Marg, i.e., "i will leave no stone unturned to make sure that true face of this group is exposed to the world. No matter how long it takes as i am ready to wait..."[[3]])

So, any any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no response to the RfC, it means that the dispute is no widely known or editors are not interested. I would suggest that you pursue WP:DR if you guys cannot find common ground on your own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Thanks for the quick response. I'm not sure if you understood my question?

There has been a response to the Rfc by other editors -- just not by the editor who's the focus of the Rfc (the one we perceive to be causing disruptions). All of the other editors are in agreement and on common ground. It sounds like you're saying if there are problems again, we would continue up the ladder of dispute resolution? (mediation has been tried, so it would be arbitration?) THanks, Renee --Renee 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics & related AfD

Hi Jossi,

I've seen your edits and admin work around a lot, and admired your fairness -- I especially liked your thoughts about the COI question earlier this year on the COI guideline talk page. Please look at my comments on the AfD talk page regarding what seemed to be WP:SYN quotes. I know why you removed them, I'd like you to know why I put them there. I could benefit a lot from any further thoughts you have about this, I"m sure one look at the AfD page itself told you all you need to know about how the discussion has gone. Thanks for the vote, I hope to hear back from you.--Rgfolsom 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP Issues

Thanks for addressing IsraelXKV8R. Just wanted to make sure you took a look at William Schniedewind due to similar concerns. I leave it to your discretion. And thanks for clarifying the expansive nature of BLP for me! -- But|seriously|folks  04:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquatraveller

Deleting content again, calling it propaganda. Doesn't appear to like Augusta much... – Dreadstar † 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haroon Rashid Aswat

Thanks, I appreciate it. My only interest in the article is the blp violations. I came across it while checking external links to prisonplanet.com, infowars.com, jonesreport.com, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TH has not withdrawn his stated intention to block me, without further warning, if he thinks the sources I use are unreliable. Rather, he has repeated this intention several times. But he hasn't given any meaningful clues as to which sources are going to trigger this threatened block. Any suggestions as to how to get this warning withdrawn, or to get someone to offer an explanation clear enough that it can be complied with? Geo Swan 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hey, I've been talking over at AdrianTM's talk page, where they have continually complained that your block was "unfair". I explained to them that I've only reverted twice (three times at most, depending on how you look at it), but they still want to hear a "logical reason" from an admin, so I'm assuming that anything I say defaults to "stupid". I'd appreciate it if you explained it to them, because they're obviously not listening to anyone else --L-- 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The user can contest the block and ask another admin to give a second opinion. It is all explained in the block notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They did, and it was rejected, that's not the point. They want to know why they were blocked, but not myself --L-- 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Rgfolsom (again)

Hi Jossi. Your response to an earlier 3RR is being disputed over at the 3RR board. I'm happy enough to live with whatever ruling you decide, but it seems clear to me that Rgfolsom has made the same revert 6 times in a 24 hour period. (Three of these are after your earlier ruling.) Ministry of random walks 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That article is now protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer on these apartheid articles

I think there are reasons to single-out these allegations. I just don't put the same weight on allegations made by two Peace Nobel Prices and a good number of very recognised people (and roughly 200 000 answers on Google) comparing to peusod-allegations made by a group of left-wing extremists (roughly 242 answers on Google / American has around 200 000 answers on Google as well but was deleted. Surprising and upsetting for us). Poppypetty 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Extension

Dear Jossi,

Many thank for giving me (and everyone else out there) until the eighth to get the citations in.

Worldwide Church of God article and possible conflict of interest

Jossi, I read the policy on conflict of interest recently. I immediately thought of the current WCG article, which you already have flagged for lack of citations. Reading that article, I had sensed not just POV, but that something wasn't right about the way the article was being used, knowing that WCG leadership are in a very awkward position with egg on their face these days, after court documents were made public by their legal opponents, the PCG. After a book was published using internal memos, emails, and financial records obtained through the discovery process in the trial WCG v. PCG, called Raising the Ruins, I realized the entire history of the post Armstrong era had to be completely overhauled--the court records painted a crystal clear picture of a doctrinal transformation that was deliberately hidden so the WCG leadership could hold on to it's members and still collect vast amounts of tithes without in turn using the tithes to publish and distribute for free Armstrong's literature, or even continue the arts programs or humanitarian projects. No one knows where the money went==about a billion dollars over five years--far more income than had ever come in before.

So I put up a posting on the WCG article discussion page asking the active editors to comment on this incredible new cash of source material. There was no reply. The editors continued to reamin active. Months later there was still no reply. Eight months later and still no comments to numerous attempts I have made to drum up discussion about these internal emails, documents etc being made available which show everything. Not a peep.

(I realize third parties are the ideal for an encyclopedia, but we do have that in Raising the Ruins--the writer is a college instructor for what its worth.)

If you please would, consider looking into investigating a possible conflict of interest with that article. Thanks in advance for any action and insight you offer.

01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

You can post a request at WP:COI/N. As for this new book, it can be cited alongside other material. You cannot use just one source for an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not be getting involved in the part of the article that deals with the post-Armstrong era. If I did, I would never use just one source. If wikipedia did that, I wouldn't use Wikipedia. I meant that the history needs to be re-written figuratively--not the entire article. Actually, I wouldn't cite the book all that much, but perhaps I would, once or twice to augment the variety of sources, directly cite court documents and memos obtained through the court case--not doing original analysis or research, but only where no interpretation was involved--and I would include footnotes.

Jebbrady 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jebbrady 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Are you sure?

Hi, Regarding your reversion to Wikipedia:Citing sources: I was under the impression that edits that have gain consensus on their respective talk pages can be requested via the editprotected template when the page is protected. I don't think that this edit was part of the previous edit war that caused the need for the protection nor is it particularly controversial. --Monotonehell 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit was not urgent and I saw no discussion. The editprotected template is for special use and I did not see that this was the case. That edit can wait until the protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a reasonable discussion carried out regarding it before the edit request was posted. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Scrolling_Reference_Lists:_Formal_Policy_Discussion --Monotonehell 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. You are welcome to restore the edit, but I would argue that it is not an urgent matter and that it can wait until protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, what clinches it is that it is entirely unrelated to the dispute that lead to the original protection (unlike the one tat I reverted over at Wikipedia:Footnotes). Circeus 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that edit was equally unrelated to the current dispute; Wikipedia:Ref reform has nothing to do with reference/punctuation order. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer relevant as another admin reverted back to the version containing that edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

use of "alleged" and "allegations"

Jossi, hi. Hope you're doing well. I noticed your presence on the AfD apartheid-China article, and your effort to move it forward. This discussion reminded me about what you were explaining to me back in the cults in literature piece. Was your point was that "alleged" is a loaded term that already degrades the neutrality of the presentation? (That is, simply adding "allege" would't sufficiently help give a fair picture of the group/person.) If so, in what way would you apply that thinking to the disputed China article and its title? Thanks!! HG | Talk 06:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG. Yes, there is a similar problem here. I made a proposal to redirects all "Allegations of XXXX Apartheid" to the main article Allegations of apartheid, in which all countries about which such allegations have been made can be featured and main viewpoints summarized. A better name needs to be found as well, as an ArbCom member recently said, an article with "Allegation of" in its title is de facto forfeiting NPOV. Maybe something along the lines of "Controversial race relations", "Controversial race practices" or "Practices compared to apartheid" or the like. The problem is that in the current heated envireonment there is not much good will around to contemplate such an approach. Hopefully, after a cool-off period, editors may be interested in pursuing that or a similar path. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC against User:Mikkalai and possible desysop

Hi Jossi, now you really know the true face of Admin Mikkalai. I wonder how decaying is Wikipedia now to have such brutal admin in such position. Not only that he responds with such brutality and rudeness to all the people but in the followings I will present you some real case with diffs for possible desysop of this rather very strange (possible ill) character.--69.62.141.29 08:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In short: let's take for example the Transnistria article. There if you're his opponent, then you'll be blocked. You'll be accuses to bo someone's sock by him, and eventually blocked. If he can't succeed this he protects the article so that you can't edit. On the talk page, he doesn't bring any arguments whatsoever.

Many people have complained about his behaviour: ask User:Dpotop [4], User:MariusM, User:JdeJ [5]...the list is very long..

From your own personal experience, even if you tried to be nice, you can't deal normally and civilized with this Russian brutal admin, who thinks he's in Russia, like Stalin. We live in a civilized culture, if he doesn't like let him stay in tundra with cows. We don't need such bias and offensive admins here. Let him be tought a lesson to be civil.

Moreover, in the case of article Transnistria there has been identified several persons to act for propaganda there for Russian interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence See the case of Arbcom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Tiraspol_Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Buffadren_blocked_as_abusive_sock-.2Fmeatpuppet

Buffadren blocked as abusive sock-/meatpuppet

Checkuser evidence has shown Buffadren is a likely sock-/meatpuppet of "MarkStreet", the editor of "Tiraspol Times". Challenged about the identity ([6]), he failed to provide a plausible explanation of how he was related to MarkStreet or to his organisation. Instead he continued to deny any relation with them ([7], [8], [9]). At the same time he has continued to lobby for the inclusion of external links to the "Tiraspol Times" ([10]). I have therefore blocked him for engaging in abusive sockpuppetry for purposes of hiding his conflict of interest with respect to that site and its political goals. Whether he is in fact MarkStreet or just a person working for the same organisation as him, he is part of a concerted astroturfing campaign trying to misuse Wikipedia for a political agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

astroturfing campaign supported by Mikkalai

That's the most dangerous thing he has done it.

And please look at the ArbCom decision regaring this campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria#Final_decision

"Astroturfing"

1) There is substantial evidence, published by reliable sources outside Wikipedia ([11], [12], [13], [14]), that there exists a professionally concerted campaign of promoting pro-Transnistrian opinions on the web in the fashion of "astroturfing". This campaign operates from several countries. Among the websites connected with this campaign is "www.tiraspoltimes.com". Editors professionally connected with tiraspoltimes have edited Wikipedia to promote this and related websites and the political views they represent. This includes User:MarkStreet, User:William Mauco and their sockpuppets.

Passed 9-0 at 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And now just look at the history of the articole Transnistria, from the last days...to see Mikkalai in action supporting the Russian campaign of Atroturfing.. [15] He does not talk on talk page rather he blocks you quick saying you're a sock or something...Actually, he's a very brutal person, not civilized and possible mental ill person with social human problems. I mean, he does not even know how to speak with the others nice and politely. Even that's one is sufficient for an RfC. You'll be supported by many others, including the Romanians, who have suffered from his Anti-Romanian views. He was even blocked for being anti-romanian once. [16]

RfC against Mikkalai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mikkalai this could be a good start --209.56.12.200 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing a user RfC on Mikkalai at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not thinking

Goddammit, how many times do I have to say this. I have explained it to you many times and you still don't get it. I'm not making up reasons here, your confusion is central to the debate. Please think about this:

The article is trying to establish the thesis that "A number of authors have leveled allegations of Chinese apartheid drawing analogies between some practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa." There is no source that states this thesis. All your sources provide data which is presented to prove the thesis. It is fundamentally wrong for a Wikipedia article to present a thesis which is not stated anywhere else and try to prove it by presenting data. --Ideogram 21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Given enough rope, some people tend to knot the proverbial rope around their own neck. Your uncivil attitude and WP:DE warrants a closer look by the community. 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is just amazing that you cannot understand the words I write. Nothing you write addresses my point, which I have stated five times now. Concentrate on the point. Don't be distracted by my attitude, my behavior, my motives, whatever you think about me. This is the reason you are losing the AfD. I ask you to shut up and think and you cannot. Why is it so difficult for you to simply stop posting, walk away, calm down, and try to be rational about this? --Ideogram 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is obvious that the one that needs to cool-off and calm down is you, Ideogram. Maybe other editors will give you some feedback about your behavior, that is unacceptable. And yes, telling a fellow editor that is editing an article in good faith to shut the fuck up as you said above is distracting. I have a thick skin, but abhor verbal abuse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)