User talk:Jossi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 20 September 2008


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #50

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.

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

As one of the administrators who has previously deleted Welsh Foundation, please see the DRV request at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8, which I have listed on behalf of another editor, who had mucked up their list attempt. This is a courtesy notice only, and I have no opinion on the matter. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

You should be kept aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrative_action_review:_Tznkai --Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR diffs please?--Tznkai (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined that one, for three reasons, in order of importance.

1. As I noted on WP:AN/3RR there is a distinct lack of consensus. Aside from genuinely not wishing to act against consensus, I have no intention of starting a wheel war.

2. When in doubt, I do not block: Kelly seems responsive to my comments without me having to use admin tools, at least thus far.

3. Mootness: I'd prefer to watch recent edits. Basically, since my re protection of the page, has someone reverted? If so, they will be warned, unless the action was egregious, and then blocked on further action. So, if Kelly has tripped over 3RR since this morning eastern time, Let me know.

I hope you trust me on this, but I do intend to enforce 3RR, but I prefer to use other resolution when it seems to be working, however slowly, as there is a lack of egregious harm.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. NP. Just keep and eye, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing.--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation formatting

Hi Jossi, I would like to convert the references in the Sahaj Marg page to a format where they're not listed separately each time they're cited as a source in the text. I've found this but am very confused about how to use it. Do I just insert the bracketed "cite book" or "cite journal" in the article, save, and then go back in and fill in the blanks? What happens when I come to the second time the same book or article is used? What do I put then? Thanks. Renee (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create a section called "References" and list there all the sources using {{cite}}, one per source. Then create a section called "Notes" in which you would place the {{reflist}}. Then simply use ref tags in the paragraphs <ref> last name of author, (Year of publication): page number. See an example at Textual criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- much appreciated. Renee (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

I understand you will not think this was the ideal solution, but as 1) there was at best no consensus on the talk page as to this content's appropriateness on the political position page; 2) a gesture of good faith per your request, I made this edit on her main talk page. Per there being no deadline, I imagine sources will be found which would make this material fit back on the position page, and then it can be consolidated in a way agreeable to all. Thanks for considering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Kelly's talk page

Not helping, borderline baiting. Let Kelly save some face please.--Tznkai (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and self-revereted. But what is obvious, is obvious. She/he has accused long-term ad well established editors in a manner that is quite inappropriate. If I was not involved in editing these articles, I would not be so lenient as you have been. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you're an entrenched editor on the Sarah Palin article, and, as such, it would be best to withhold your opinions on how other administrators should handle situations involving your fellow editors. Saying you would not have been "so lenient" as an administrator against an editor that has been involved in disputes with you further muddies what should be a much clearer line between your editing and your administrating, especially given the significant controversy and challenging environment surrounding that article. user:j (aka justen) 04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, for what it's worth, I sympathize with some of your thoughts on the Sarah Palin page. As you know, I made one contribution to the page based on LexisNexis and Factiva research results of multiple reliable sources verifying information and it was disregarded because some editors felt it was "not notable" -- apparently, The Washington Post, NPR, and other major news sources disagreed with their judgment but that didn't give anyone pause. Meanwhile, it seems that a handful of editors have discovered the power of WP:CONSENSUS to circumvent WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V -- not to mention widely accepted guidelines like WP:RS. I'm disappointed with some of the unhelpful comments and decisions that were made on that talk page. WP:BLP, for example, was never intended to be used for political purposes to remove inconveniently sourced facts. It was a policy established to remove clear cases of libel (rare as they may be to prove), unsourced malicious comments, and harm to innocent third-parties too young to defend themselves. In any case, you have at least the respect of one other editor on Wikipedia. As for me, I'm going to stay away from the page for a while. Keep up the good work. It doesn't go unnoticed. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I encourage you to continue the good work you have been doing. Wikipedia needs to have accurate, timely, interesting, informative, well researched and documented material in its articles not locked up on its talk pages.Rktect (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

woof woof. I can't believe this ID Cabal crap. Apparently, the new method of attacking an editor is to accuse them of being part of a cabal. Well, I'm proud to be in the Wikipedia project with you. Otherwise. Yawn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people see ghosts anywhere :) If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Semipro

Has there been an incident? If not, leave it be until it is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

I had to remove your oppose (and the related conversation) from the history. Please feel free to insert a refactored oppose on this RfA. Please do not take this personally - I am not doing this to discount your oppose on this RfA. Thanks for your understanding and apologies for the inconvenience. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk page - The deletion log appears to show that this talk page was deleted in 2007. The history of the page starts abruptly in 2007. Am I reading those logs incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name change, if my memory serves me well, was on Dec 2005. The deletion by Pilotguy may have been related to some personal information being disclosed there, I don't recall the circumstances but by the edit summary of Pilotguy it seems he wanted to oversight something. As for Cirt's situation, I certainly hope that he will do OK with the tools and not go back to the previous patterns and I hope that my oppose will be on the record as a reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But to get back to the question, you said I was wrong and that this talk page was not deleted. The evidence appears to show that it was deleted. Can you explain why you think this page was never deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the log and if you still don't get it, I cannot help you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with restoring the edits that you say weren't deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Maybe Pilotguy will remember what happened then. The only concern is the oversight he mentions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall now... I think that Drini posted private information by mistake on my talk page after trying to get a cloak account for IRC, and Pilotguy deleted the page.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I can restore the bulk of the edits skipping over the private information bit. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we all agree now that the talk page was, in fact, deleted in 2007? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me, and not by my request. Now, if you don;t mind... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I'll go back and correct the record at the RFA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted in opposition based on my own observations/experiences of Cirt and their previous incarnation/s. In my opposition, I cited some of the concerns that you raised on the RFA page. I just went back to comment on Durova's comment and saw this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCirt&diff=237409242&oldid=237409058. It really heightens the concerns I expressed in my opposition. You are an admin. I think that this should really be looked into especially when you consider some of the ways that Durova's edit interests parallel Cirt/Smeelgova. I strongly request that Wikipedia look at this closer. Ebay3 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be glad to answer your questions about edit interests. Cirt and I conominated Portal:Textile arts for featured candidacy earlier this year. We also collaborated on the feminism portal, which is currently in portal peer review, and we're collaborating on the Finger Lakes portal. Cirt also assists reviewing triple crown nominations. I doubt any of that is cause for concern, but if you have other questions please do ask. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PNT

Hello Jossi. I noticed you are a native speaker of Spanish; would you be able to translate some of the pages at WP:PNT? And since you're an admin you'd be able to delete anything you recognise as spam or non-notable. Regards, Balkan Fever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written in Spanish for many, many years... so I am a bit rusty to take on this. But I can still take a look and remove NN material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you can still read it, right? IT's just translation from Spanish into English. Balkan Fever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
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) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Alternative medicine

A tag has been placed on Template:Alternative medicine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image movement within Sarah Palin

I have noticed that you have repeatedly moved the image located within Sarah Palin#Personal life in a manner that violates Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Most specifically, you have moved the image so that everyone in the image is "facing away" from the article text. For more information on proper image placement please see MOS:IMAGES and Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images. --Allen3 ^talk 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I missed that in my last edit there. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

palin religion info

Jossi, as I have stated at talk, I think that whole final section is superfluous and should be synthesized into the main article. However, putting that aside, I note the religion info you have just been editing is duplicated in "personal life" and "religious background." Would you consider deleting one? I'd do it, but I have been chastisted once today for removing it (on different grounds). Let me know. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss in talk. I may have added dup material mistakenly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I replied at talk - the whole para is in there twice. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I note that you're making edits on the religion section of the Palin article. These seem like good ones. A few suggestions: 1. there should be a citation for the claim that the churches she attended support dispensationalism (the citation at the end of the sentence seems to suggest only that such a belief can influence one's policy views). I don't personally doubt this fact, just that someone is bound to come along and challenge it at some point. 2. Dispensationalism, or at least what I have learned from a brief reading on the Wikipedia article describing it, has 3 central features: a. belief in a literal reading of the bible; b. the sole election of believers to heaven on the day of judgement (I think that is what it is saying -- it is rather arcane to me as an unbeliever); and c. something to do with conversion of the Jews into 'believers' (?). In any event, just noting these things for you. Since you're working on the section, I won't touch it so as not to interfere with your edits. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, please... go ahead and tweak as needed. I was just citing what the sources said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

Hey -- I put that stuff back in the religion section. The information was more detailed that the brief sumamry in the personal section. There is a discussion (I think you commented) about removal of the religion section -- let's wait for the outcome before removing the material though, okay? Atom (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy does it

You seem to be attacking me.[1] The concerns I have raised are bona fide, I am going through proper channels, and I am in contact with Rlevse. He would surely tell me to back off if I was causing a problem. Feel free to address your concerns to him. Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you, Jeochman. I have expressed my concerns in talk, and other users, including recent participants have expressed similar concerns. The "proper channels" is to leave this RFA to continue without any further comments on participants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't comment on me further. I have no need to comment further at the RFA. I will take my concerns directly to WP:RFCU, WP:SSP or WP:BN if required. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problems. Postiing on these boards is a much better way to go about it. Thanks, Jeochman. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Rlevse#RFA — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll do fine.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rad edit

Takes the cake. The fact that the picture was on Commons since February is mind-boggling stuff. XF Law (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was as surprised... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...[2] Durova^Charge! 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ahem... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you find that old thing? Durova^Charge! 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin - OR

Hi Jossi, Could you please review my comments here: [[3]] and revise if you agree. Thanks, IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for this remark [4]. It wasn't a helpful thing to say or ask. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it and thank you for refactoring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Schweitzer

Why did you lock Brian Schweitzer's Wiki Page. We were having discussion regarding the controversy section to come to an agreement. This is a very important part of his Governorship and it could define his history and hand print on the state. Please allow at least a knocked down version with links to all the info regarding this issue. Also there was a 2006 lawsuit filed regarding this issue that should be able to be posted as well, and some of his statements match up to the lawsuit that was filed. Help2008Montana (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was semi protected for seven days per this request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I just found out that the discussion section on Brian Schweitzer's Wiki page was removed also. Please resolve this problem. Also the following is who took the controversy section down, she is the governors press secretary http://www.greatfallstribune.com Help2008Montana (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems at Ramakrishna

Hi Jossi, please see here. I am going to revert the last month's worth of edits to the Ramakrishna article because all references to the most notable academic studies of the past 30 years have been deleted from the biography section. I would really appreciate any guidance that you can offer. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there, and it is in my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin image input

I could just kiss you. But I'm a dude. So i'll just say well done. Duuude007 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a uncropped version that could be added, but I wasnt sure how you did that. the source is here: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg On the left is aide Ivy Frye (implicated in troopergate); the other is former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman. Duuude007 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for the uncropped version was not given to OTRS. The permission was for just that portion, as far as I understand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

You can check my talk page. I am in consistent talk with Bob Weinstein, he gave me unlimited permission for both. Duuude007 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted articles restored to main space - I moved it to your user space

Hi Jossi, this shouldn't be in the main article space, per the deletion that just happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation, so I moved it your user space as a courtesy. Someone may see it as a recreation of properly deleted material outside of DRV otherwise. Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had a question. Did someone else recover this article for you, or did you use your tools as an admin? You are an involved editor on any Prem Rawat materials. Did you just restore this to article space after you voted to keep it using your tools? rootology (C)(T) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note on AN just to get an outside opinion, as it's arguable we're too involved with each other right now. rootology (C)(T) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are crossing the line here:

The material was not copied to the mainspace, but to talk space and there is nothing wrong with that
I had a copy of the material on-disk, before the AfD (I was the author).

* Please stop the witch hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 I dropped a note on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Procedural_question_-_admins_recovering_deleted_article_content... AN] just to get an outside opinion, as it's arguable we're too involved with each other right now. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
+: You are crossing the line here:
+:* The material was not copied to the mainspace, but to talk space and there is nothing wrong with that
+:* I had a copy of the material on-disk, before the AfD (I was the author).
+: * Please [[WP:STALK|stop the witch hunt]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)