User talk:Jossi

Skip to table of contents


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #87

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

“

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.

Your block of ScienceApologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Army "sanitisation"

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

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

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

IRC?

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

Reason for edit

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

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

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


Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81.178.103.117

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

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

Protection

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I did discuss on the talk page a week or two ago and only got an incoherent reply: [1]. So I've started a new thread... please reply with something more than "unneeded" if you're going to revert me to keep this language out of the policy. --Rividian (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatimah

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

71.141.114.187

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing in Tibetan Buddhism

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

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

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

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

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [2].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [3].

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

Wikipedia:Living People Patrol

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

Talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistance

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

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

I may be new but..

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

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

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

You're being talked about

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

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

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

TomKat

Hello As you have made comments of the discussion page of the TomKat article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would contribute to the debate on it's Articles for Deletion page. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TomKat