User talk:Jossi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:jossi/Archives/2006 November. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Advice Request 2 Another advice request 3 apologies if 3rd reversion 4 apologies, but I have not added external links 5 Category deletion on Ayn Rand - FYI 6 Reliable Sources 7 Original research 8 Your thoughts about page protection 9 Larry Craig 10 AFD and recruiting votes... 11 Block on Mustafa Akalp 12 Unblock Review 13 Al Franken 14 Inclusionist? 15 Good Book examples? 15.1 FYI 16 Regarding Association of Members' Advocates 17 Please take the time to read 18 Larry Craig 19 Contrib list 20 Technical question 21 Changed my vote 22 Larry Craig 23 Courtesy notification 24 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine 25 Your User Page 26 Witch-hunt 27 WP:COI 27.1 Reply 28 Tiger Woods 29 Type specimens 30 Oops? 31 Semi-protection policy 32 Crazy Therapies 33 Air Traffic deletion 34 Rosarivo and golden ratio 35 Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 36 New infobox for type specimen pages 37 Civility 38 Youtube at AN 39 New larger type specimens 40 FYI 41 Unblock 42 Hannity 43 Lindsay Conway 44 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Pinto 45 Citing pay-to-view sources 46 Abusive vandal 47 How to add screenshot 48 Portugal page 49 November Esperanza Newsletter 50 wikEd 51 Battle of Hulao Pass 52 Donald Rumsfeld and User talk:203.55.191.65 53 Contributory Copyright Infringement: France 3 Video 54 Deletion of Sözler 55 My RfA 56 Question on 3RR for multiple edits 57 Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous 58 Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University 59 Response to Luis Riveros and Request to Jossi 60 Thanks for the welcome 61 Sorry, please take a look 62 Voyage video, torrent 63 Larry Craig 64 The "Baha Faith 65 Dalbury's RfA 66 PETA 67 RfC on RPJ 68 Brahma Kumaris 69 Dead Link 70 Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University 71 Take Notice re Smeelgova's edits: Articles regarding ongoing enterprises, ArbCom ruling 71.1 Articles regarding ongoing enterprises 72 Admin Jossi: Please take it as a good faith mistake

[edit] Advice Request

Hi Jossi, given recent comments at talk:Muhammad, I am not sure that conflict can be resolved without the help of a mediator (official or otherwise). Unfortunatately, I have not received any positive reception for the idea of mediation. I know I did not ask your advice with repect to SSS conflict. I felt in that case it would give the appearance, correct or otherwise, that I was biased toward one side. However, I would greatly appreciate your advice for handling the Muhammad conflict. If you are too busy, I understand, but any thoughts would be appreciated. (p.s. I don't know if you share my views on the image in question, but I imagine you might be able to give me useful advice in either case.) --BostonMA ^talk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for mediation, as I stated clearly on the Tlak page.DocEss 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I just saw that. I have resonded on your talk page. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look, but if it is too toxic, I may decline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another advice request

Hi Jossi

I also am a proud student of Maharaji, and have been since I first met him in 1971. I acknowledge you for your part in the incredible transformation of the Prem Rawat article over the last couple of years.

I would like to ask your advice on how to proceed with another article which appears to me to be being hijacked by a small but vocal group who wish to mount an orchestrated smear campaign directed against Landmark Education. Since last May, the balance of the article has been strongly shifted in a manner which appears to me to violate the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to what are in fact insignificant minority opinions. Much of this has been at the hands of user:smeelgova who has made thousands of edits on this and related topics, including creating many articles on individuals which may well violate the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. Many of these include a large number of links to the Rick Ross website and similar activists. He also often reverts instantly the edits of other users and frequently makes accusations of vandalism. Attempts to engage him in debate seem to be met by a variety of rhetorical devices, but no real dialog. I would appreciate any suggestions you have. thanks Dexton 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Yes. I have encoutered smeelgova in some articles. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally resent these personal attacks from this editor who has never personally engaged me in discussion on any of the talk pages. I have tried with my utmost to only edit using cited sources in blockquoted referenced format, and to engage editors of opposing opinions on the talk pages. I have even engaged in dialogue to a detailed extent so as to reach consensus with editors of opposing viewpoints before changing material in question. I am also relatively new to Wikipedia, and it is hurtful to be attacked in this manner whilst endeavouring to cite sources in the proper manner. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] apologies if 3rd reversion

• I don't believe that was the 3rd reversion, if so my apologies. I thought you were editing a new subsection, and not the external links section. Does that seem correct? Yours, Smeelgova 23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

No need to apologize. We all make mistakes. But you need to show some responsibility and not jeopardize Wikipedia and the Foundation by linking to what seems to be obvious copyvios. The resposible think mto do is to err on the side of caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the material in question in accordance with discussion above. Yours, Smeelgova 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

It is unfortunate that new user Dexton who has himself as yet made zero edits to articles or comments on talk pages aside from above, felt he could not voice his concerns/opinions/assumptions to myself directly. I have posted a notice to his talk page welcoming him to Wikipedia, and expressing my hope and concern that in the future we can amiably and professionally discuss potential edits on talkpages and reach consensus, before jumping to other users'/administrators' talk pages. As previously stated, I have strived to in keeping with blockquote citation format, and have discussed issues with others including yourself to the point of coming to consensus whilst modifying articles. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

• • Jossi, I was cited by Smeelgova for a 3RR on this very link. I pointed out to Smeelgova that linking to copyright infringement is just as bad as posting copyright infringement. I pointed out to Smeelgova that the offending material was removed from YouTube and Archive.org and now Google video, and Smeelgova has persisted in posting these links, only now backing down that you are involved. I would like to get my first and only 3RR violation expunged. Can you do this? Sm1969 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot do that. You can ask the blocking admin or place a request for review at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • The 3RR and the alleged copyright violation are two separate issues. User Sm1969 would not wait to discuss the issue and reach a consensus on the talk page of Landmark Education, instead reverting and then resorting to using a sock puppet IP address to continue reverting. Please note that the original allegations of sock puppetry were not made by myself, but by users John254 and William M. Connolley, on Sm1969's block evidence. Yours, Smeelgova 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
      • There are two separate issues. 1) I violated 3RR even with my user id (Sm1969) and two additional reverts as the IP address for not logging in (from a different computer, which I state was my error). In all edits, I identified the offending edit, and I think it was clear to Smeelgova that I was the same person in all 5 edits. Smeelgova has brought up every twisted argument and even changed his arguments, going as far as you recognize to put links to piratebay.org on Wikipedia. How can I be expected to reach agreement with him? For your own discussions, Jossi, I think you can see Smeelgova's logic. In my "offending edits" that were reverts of what Jossi clearly recozniges to be egregiously dangerous for Wikipedia, I acted in good faith. The reduction in damage to Wikipedia from Smeelgova's contributory copyright infringement should easily outweigh 3RR. I request that my 3RR penalty and Sockpuppet accusations be expunged and that the a blocking penalty be assessed against Smeelgova for truly egregious conduct. I'm glad Jossi understands the importance of copyright. Sm1969 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just note that you are very close to violating WP:3RR yourself. When you ask other to reach consensus before reverting, you cannot exclude yourself from it. If there are objections to your edits, that means that there is no consensus for these edits. It cuts both ways. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how am I close to violating 3RR? Please specify, and I will immediately cease said actions, however I think that you are missing the difference between 3RR and new edits on a new theme. Thanks for engaging in discussion, however. Yours, Smeelgova 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

You may need to re-read WP:3RR. You have reverted the deletion of links to materials that have been challenged as very possible copyvios. Count how many times have you done so. 3RR does not mean reverting exactly thes same edit. 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will file a WP:3RR violation against Smeelgova for the reasons you cited. I see that putting back links to the video for several times is in violation. Sm1969 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apologies, but I have not added external links

• Please, this is a plea for kindness and NPOV understanding on your part. I have NOT inputted any new external links, I have actually removed all the external links in question. I do not understand what the issue is here. I am trying to discuss, cooperate and be amiable to your requests regarding the external links. There are no more external links to the files in question on any of the articles you are referring to. I truly want to work with you on this. Yours, Smeelgova 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

I am trying to assume good faith, but note that in your last edit (diff, you re-added a link to alleged copyvio, and maybe mistakenly violated WP:3RR. You may want to self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I want to believe you, I want to work with you. I want you to teach me how to comport myself in a professional manner on Wikipedia. However if you please look closely at the above edit you mention, you will note that I restored your version of the article as a compromise to user Sm1969. I did not input any external links, aside from the one link to "Dailymotion". That link was to the site's main page, and that was only because Dailymotion does not yet have an article on Wikipedia. When creating new articles or adding information to articles this is a practice I frequently keep. I will refer out to mainpages of websites that do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. It would be like inputting Coca Cola if there were no article as of yet on Coca Cola. Yours, Smeelgova 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

OK. I can see that now, my mistake. Thanks for removing these links. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Good, please also remove any information on how to get the copyright violating content from PirateBay and eMule. Initially, after a good 25 edits back and forth, you have realized that putting links to copyrighted material violates Wikipedia policy. I think the next logical step is to recognize that giving English language directions on how to get the copyright infringing material is just as bad. I have pointed you numerous times to the Wikipedia policy on external links where it talks about "contributory copyright infringement." By putting up a chronicle of the Internet story and how to get the video, you are effectively using Wikipedia to market copyrighted material--that's "contributory copyright infringement." Any reference to where this video was or how to get it needs to be taken down. I'm not a lawyer and I do not own the copyright and please don't construe this as a legal threat, but you need to wisen up real fast with this; interpret me as being polite and urgent; I'd have no trouble seeing Landmark Education, from its history, serving you with a summons for this. Sm1969 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's move the discussion to the article's talk page, shall we? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion on Ayn Rand - FYI

Saw you deleted Category:Leaders of alleged cults from Ayn Rand. Just so you know (maybe you already knew), there have been a number of attempts over time to remove that category from this article (most recently by me!). It's gotten put back every time, much to several editors' frustration, and is causing something of an edit war/POV war. Unless the category itself ends up getting deleted (which I support), it will likely be reintroduced on the Rand article. --Bookgrrl 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the use of spurious categories to push a POV is a problem in WP. Did you know that "alleged" and "cult" are Wikipedia:Words to avoid? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

One more question. Is an editorial a reliable source for a BLP if it's controversial? Thanks. --PTR 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing the details, I would say no. If the editorial is in a reputable publication, you can attribute the comment to the person that wrote it, though. But context is everything, so unless you tell me what article you are referring to, is hard to tell. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's the Hannity article and Sandy has already responded on my talk page. The question was on either an opinion piece or letter to the editor (you couldn't tell from the webpage) critical of Hannity written by two comedian/writers. In a larger sense, this is the first BLP I've worked on and I'm trying to make sure I know what I'm doing as far as allowable material goes. --PTR 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, we had a long discussion on your talk page, now archived I believe, about Media Matters as a reliable source on Sean Hannity. The consensus was that it was a biased source, and it was removed. Now, others have re-added text sourced to Media Matters, with some talk page verbiage referencing WP:ATT rather than WP:RS. Does anything in the Attribution proposal make Media Matters suddenly a valid, unbiased source? If yes, why? If not, why is text sourced to MediaMatters being re-inserted at Sean Hannity? (I'm traveling, and only have access to a very slow dialup connection, so perhaps I'm falling behind in some new development that suddenly renders biased sources as acceptable.) In the meantime, another editor is accusing me of "POV-pushing" for having removed text sourced to Media Matters, in spite of previous consensus that it was a biased source. Sandy (Talk) 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Jossi, I saw your note on the RFAr for Bowling for Columbine, and I have a question for you about how you're interpreting WP:NOR. Do you consider editor-created plot summaries for films, books, TV episodes, etc. to be original research? For example, if I were to read War and Peace and write up a plot summary, is that OR in your view? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep your summary short and concise, maybe one or two sentences and you may get away with it. More than that it will be sooner or later challenged as OR. Better, find a good summary from a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts about page protection

Hi Jossi, I was wondering what you thought about temporary page protection. Do you think it does any good? Or does it just delay the inevitable, or even get people more fired up? I've only witnessed it twice. The first time was when you protected the Communism page, when I first started editting. Unfortunately, one of the edit warriors in that case went on to get himself banned from Wikipedia. The other case that I am familiar with is SSS, and again, I don't know whether it helped or hurt. I'm not asking you to take action, but I'm wondering. You said I seemed to be doing all right by myself on Muhammad. I sort of laugh when I read that. There probably a half dozen reverts per day on this one image. I have filed a request for a mediator at the mediation cabal, and I have stated that I will not be directly editting Muhammad during the interim. However, from my perspective, progress seems to be slow to negative on the reversions and edit summaries issue. Unfortunately, the most active editor has not yet expressed a willingness to participate in mediation, and I've been thinking that page protection might be a way to say "hey, this isn't the way to go about this, please try to work things out". So, as you can see, I'm a bit frustrated, and looking at the options. Again, I would appreciate your opinions, not asking you to take action (unless you feel it is immediately warranted). Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A temporary semi-protection works quite well, as it eliminate pesky sockpuppets and other trolls, but is only temporary. At a certain point enough editors would care enough for the article not to allow these type of edits to disrupt the editing process. I see that someone else already sprotected the page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page has been sprotected for a while, but the edit conflicts are between established editors.  :-( ... BostonMA ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

Got a question for you -- this was brought up on the WP:BLP alert page and I'm still feeling like I'm a bit of a noob on BLPs-- I tried to take a stab at giving guidance on that page, but not sure if I'm being too strict... What do you think? --plange 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That controversial material was borderline enough to warrant deletion as per WP:BLP. If the allegation in question was picked up by the maintsream press, that would have been different. As it stands now, it is poorly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi! I thought that was the case but was losing the battle and so it made me question myself :-) --plange 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD and recruiting votes...

• Jossi: I have listened to your advice, since the very first time you gave it, and stopped recruiting any votes, as you and your friends termed it. Even though I haven't done any more of that by action, my discussion responses alone seem to have stirred up a hornets nest of threats from Wikipedia Administrators. Since none of them have answered my questions, perhaps you can. I won't "recruit votes" any more, but I wanted to know, what is "consensus building" and how does one go about doing so without posting information of interest to other Editors on their talk pages? Thanks for your time, you actually seemed less pist off somehow than these other new guys, who expect me to just say "Oh, OK", and not even discuss the issues on talk pages. I mean, wow, seems like they have more of a high-and-mighty approach to the whole Admin thing than yourself. Teach me. Yours, Smeelgova 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

You build consensus by engaging other editors on talk-page discussions in good faith, with the purpose of bettering the encyclopedia (not with the purpose to forward your own POV). See Wikipedia:Consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will you teach me how to go about this delicately? Will you tell your friends to calm down a little bit, and actually help me try to take your advice? Will you have the patience and openness to listen and allow me the time to learn? Thank you for your response. This went downhill so fast, and after I stopped my worrisome actions, all due to discussion - I can't believe I am being threatened because of asking questions and wanting to learn - By the way, what does "wikilawyering" mean? You guys have your own jargon over here as well, lol. Smeelgova 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

1. The people that addressed you are not "my friends", they are fellow editors
2. It is your prerrogative to feel threatenend. You can, instead, be thankful that they care enough to warn you for actions that can result in losing your editing privileges
3. What is "Wikilayering"? See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. You have been wikilayering quite a bit, for example, asking people to reach consensus before editing your edits, while you yourself edit other editor's contrbutions without asking for consensus; asking "show me the policy that says I cannot do this or that" rather than seeing if the comment made by that editor makes sense or not; etc.
4. I may not be always available to assist you. Feel free to add a {{helpme}} tag to your talk page, or ask one of the more experienced editors that you interact with.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you accept the fact that I took your advice from the first time you gave it? Can we all move on from this? Can you and I try to treat each other in a more kind and warm manner reflective of the "wikipedia community" that everyone is referring to? Thank you for the response. Yours, Smeelgova 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

As they say "the proof is in the pudding." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Does this mean you will reserve judgement on my future actions or inactions? Can we attempt to have a more amiable discussion/debate on future articles? Also, a request, can you at least try to wait more than say a few days before AFD'ing my articles? This would give others a chance to view it and possibly expand. This is the purpose of the "Stub" notice after all. Thank you for the response. Smeelgova 19:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Sure. One way that I can reserve judgement is if you make an effort to edit Wikipedia, without such a obvious bias for specific articles. It seems that you had some kind of negative experience with certain groups, or have some kind of strng aversion to certain topics, and that maybe you are more interested in promoting a specific viewpoint on these groups, rather that creating a great encyclopedia. There are several long-standing editors of Wikipedia that have raised a concern about this situation. I would recommend that you read: What Wikipedia is not for some guidance that you may find helpful. Another useful esaay is Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I must point out that it seems I am not the only one with a certain type of agenda to push. One might argue that many people come here with their own POVs, and lots have their own agenda. Regardless, yes, I have read Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy, recommended to me by wise and fair User:Jmabel. Please allow me some time to process. I am working on absorbing the essay and taking it to heart. Yours, Smeelgova 19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Sure... all of us have our POVs. The promise of this project, though, is that people with opposing views (can we say "enemies"?), if abiding by the principles upon which the content policies have been established, and if theu engage each other with respect and civility, can work together and create articles that are neutral, informative and interesting. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Will you allow me the time and lattitude to learn from all of this commentary? Will you give me the benefit of the doubt for the time-being that I will take in what you and other Wikipedia Administrators have said? Can we try to get along in a warmer fashion? Thanks for the response. Yours, Smeelgova 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Block on Mustafa Akalp

Would you consider shortening this block to 24 hours? I'd like to give him a chance to withdraw his comments in the Khoikhoi RFA before it finishes (not that I think it will make a difference to the result). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather consider extending it in view of his persistence in continuing the same spamming behavior in the Turkish WP (Contribs). I'd also like to know if there are precedents for global-WP banning. •NikoSilver• 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does seem to have been at the same time as the spamming here, rather than continuing after the block, so I wouldn't hold it up as an example of the continuation of his bad behaviour. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. :-( I didn't check the times. The usual wrong assumption that something is done when you see it done, and not when the timestamp reads. My apologies to all involved. •NikoSilver• 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Review

Jossi, I've reviewed the block of User:New Orleans Jazz under consultation from User:DragonflySixtyseven, and I'm unblocking the user assuming good faith that the edits were not attempts at vandalism, blanking, or spam. Improper formatting, improper linking but the material was valid. I'm more than happy to extend the block should the user violate policy in the future. Teke^(talk) 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

=

[edit] Al Franken

Hello, plange referred you to me for a query I had regarding a BLP. It seems to me - and I'll be the first to admit that I have my biases and am probably lacking objectivity here - that the 'controversy section' of the Al Franken page is less than adequate. There are one or two 'controversies' that are just plain silly, and could easily be mentioned in passing in the main article (see: 'The takedown'). As well some are just symptoms of Franken's humor (see: 'Ashcroft apology'). I would really appreciate any time you could spare to take a gander at the page and give me some objectivity, and perhaps a starting point for any repairs I might take on. Thank you. --Jackbirdsong 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with the article, but if you have strong concerns, you can place a request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard so that volunteers that are active in biographies of living people can take a closer look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My only real concern with the article was that most of the controversies could easily be placed in the main article under more appropriate categories that do not encourage trolls. The only real controversy seems to be the first one listed, but that could go under the 'radio show' category, as it is already mentioned on the Air America page.--Jackbirdsong 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusionist?

• I don't get it, I found you over at Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians ? Doesn't seem to make sense, but I joined as well, so glad to be members together! Yours, Smeelgova 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

So why did you join that list? Do you feel you have inclusionist tendencies on certain issues, or have you changed your mind since you originally joined? Just curious. Yours, Smeelgova 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

• Please, it wasn't "lip service" I truly would love to be on better footing with you User:Jossi. If you have more patience with me and more kindness in your corrective tone/language, you will see that I can learn and change my edit patterns. Yours, Smeelgova 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

It is not about wikilove, Smeelgova. Is about intent. The perception I get from your edits, I do not like one bit, you are trying too hard to push your POV. I tried to alert you to this fact, but you do not like to hear what you don't agree with. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been trying to push your POV much harder and for much longer than you perceive that I have. I don't think that is the issue here. If you give me more "wikilove" you will find that I will shift my edit style, and work with you on a much better level. Also, as you said previously, it is not the type of edits, but the style of editing that is the issue. You can teach me how to change my edit style, whilst letting me keep my POV and editing arena, if you just give me more "wikilove". And this is not "lip service". If you stop your bullying and act nicer to me, I will act much nicer to you. The golden rule and all. Love your fellow man. I'm serious. Yours, Smeelgova 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Perceptions is always 50%-50%, so I maye be doing something wrong if you consider my behavior to be "bullying". I take notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, well thank you for acknowledging that. I think one thing that Wikipedia Adminstrators don't realize is how scared or intimidated mere editors can get when they are threatened or given "suggestions" from admins. It's really not a relationship on equal footing. Even if admins might not have extra powers when dealing with articles they are invested in, or if they have an obvious POV on an issue, editors sometimes perceive that other Wikipedia Administrators will more often then not side with a fellow admin than a lowly editor. So yes, thank you for taking notice. Yours, Smeelgova 15:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

As I said, perceptions are always 50%-50%. Maybe it is time now for you to consider your 50%. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Book examples?

• User:Jossi, I can't seem to find the place where you mentioned the 2 book articles you liked as model examples. Can you give me like your idea of say, 4 or so book articles that you consider to be really good? I want some common ground to offer to people as an example/model. Thank you. Yours, Smeelgova 01:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Okay, I found 2 of them that you recommended: A_Return_to_Love and City_of_Djinns. Could you maybe give me like 2 or 3 other examples that you personally like, nonfiction? Thanks. Smeelgova 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Better, read WP:BK first. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Duly noted. I'll try to get to it soon. However, interesting to note that this page is just a proposed guideline, and is in flux, so it could change as people's perceptions of Wikipedia change.... Smeelgova 04:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

It is being slowly adopted, though, as it makes good sense. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the part at WP:BK#Criteria, where it only has to meet one of the criteria, and one of them is if the author is notable. We should be able to introduce works if the author is notable, because the work is/or probably will become notable in its own right. I see you added a caveat below about this, but since that caveat is so new, it cannot yet be considered consensus, though it may be at a later date. Yours, Smeelgova 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] FYI

Looks like User:Pascal.Tesson took out that section you added, as well as a small piece I had put below it for clarification. On another note, the poor guy is being attacked by abuser/vandals on his user page, why, I have no idea. I think that's something that everybody can agree is unconscionable on Wikipedia, especially using that kind of language...yeesh. Yours, Smeelgova 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take the time to read

Jossi, I have the impression that you do not take the time to read the articles that you comment on and study the subject before making edits, comments on the talk page and asking question. I think that this behavior causes me and others unnecessary work. Please take your time. Thanks in advance. Andries 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, and it discussed the subject ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

Threatening me with censorship because of your politics is wrong. I'm sorry, but I'm not homophobic. So I don't regard reporting that someone is gay as "defamatory." And I didn't make the claim, I correctly inserted the REALITY that multiple mainstream news sources have reported this. Would it be defamatory to say someone eats Tacos? No, only if you think Tacos are awful, like YOU think being gay is awful. WIkipedia should not have censorship policies based on homophobia. What is written are FACTS. It does not say he IS gay. It says an independent journalist has FOUR confirmed soucres he is. And this has been reported in mainstream news outlets. ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO READ ABOUT IT. Ok? 69.86.190.128 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to amplify rumors. Add that material again and you will be blocked for either WP:3RR or for violating WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I am the total opposite of a conservative. This has nothing to do with my politcs, but with my responsibiloty as an editor in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not rumors. They are facts. The sources had sex with Craig.And it was confirmed by independent journalist Mike Rogers, whom I know. YOU are not the arbitor of what is "rumor" and who is a journalist. It has been reported in multiple outlets at this point, as are referenced in the insertion.69.86.190.128 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If these were facts, they will platered all over the media. All the sources provided are not reliable sources for the purpose of substantiate these claims. See WP:BLP and WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am changing some stuff in controversy above from refs to inline citations. This will help you all to check out the verifiability/reputability of the controversial sources in question. Yours, Smeelgova 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

I have finished my changes to inline citations on the Larry Craig page. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on Blogs and reputability is, but we might be wise to remove all of the direct Blog citations, and only leave in the citations from larger, more reputable media sources that refer to the blogs. What do you think? Now that I'm done with the inline citations, I think I'll stay away from this page for a bit and see how it evolves. Yours, Smeelgova 04:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

So is it me, or does having a section titled "Uncomfirmed Rumors" violate the most basic tenant of WP:BIO. In fact I think it's explicitly listed in the WP:NOT seciotn of tabloid. --Tbeatty 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is not only you. I agree as well. But I don't want to editwar about it. I tried, at least, to cover the Foundation's backside witht that edit. Feel free to delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrib list

• (I responded on my talk page). Just to be extra clear, I used to check your contrib list, but even so, I didn't follow you around, at the time it was just another way to check up on edits you were doing to specific articles I was interested in. I actually haven't checked your contrib list in a coupla days, and don't plan to do so that much anymore anyways. Thank you for enlightening me that this is not a preferred practice on Wikipedia, but I am curious, why is this frowned upon if one were to use this as a creative way to chance upon articles that they have a neutral POV on? Again, thanks for letting me know about this, in any event. Yours, Smeelgova 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Technical question

I hope I am not bothering you with multiple comments on your talk page in these different sections, but I'm very glad to see that we are working together in a professional and pretty neutral manner. Like I said, as to the Larry Craig article I chanced upon it and saw the whole controversy. I really admire how you are trying to do right by the verifiability/reputability of sources, and being very cautious with this sensitive, current event.

• My technical question is this: Can you have a look at my question at the bottom of Template_talk:Cults, and see if you know the answer as to why this is happening? Yours, Smeelgova 05:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Changed my vote

• Just a friendly notice, I changed my vote to delete, over at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_21#Category:Scholars_and_groups_accused_of_cult_apologism. In the end, you made a sound, polite argument. Thanks. Yours, Smeelgova 05:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Larry Craig

I read your request in wikipedia:requests for page protection, and you did nothing wrong. However, I just want to let you know that we always put either "full protection", "semi protection", "move protection", or more than one request for one article; and we put either of these phrases in bold. In that way, others could see it better. --Gh87 07:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy notification

I mentioned your talk page here. The confusion created by the new proposal at WP:ATT, vis-a-vis WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP is making it difficult to uphold WP:BLP: we need to get some clarification on this matter, as Arbustoo (talk • contribs) continues to accuse me of "POV-pushing" for removing content based on non-reliable sources from BLPs. The way it appears, if we don't get some clarification on the stance of the new proposal, WP:BLP has no teeth, and we aren't taking it as seriously as we were initially asked to take it in the commentary from Jimbo, and as laid out on WP:BLP. Further, anyone trying to uphold BLP is open to false accusations in this confusing environment. I'm not in favor of the direction that WP:ATT is heading, but because I'm traveling and have had limited internet access, I've not been able to keep up with developments there. Sandy (Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 18:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your User Page

• I reverted obvious vandalism to your user page. Your user page is on my watch list because of other comments I leave here on the talk page. Please let me know if this is something inappropriate and left to you to perform, or something to be encouraged. I think we can all agree that this kind of vandalism in particular is despicable. Yours, Smeelgova 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. Reverting vandalism anywhere in WP is always welcome. My page gets vandalized a lot, due to the fulfillment of my admin duties. Vandals don't like it... :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Hope you're doing well otherwise. Smeelgova 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Witch-hunt

You were right about Witch-hunt. I started searching for "cult", but got "cultures", "occult", etc. So I switched the search to " cult", but that excluded the one relevant usage, which was ""cult". Thanks for catching my error. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah... the vagaries of search terms.... Thanks for checking and acknowledging this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

I think you should be very clear indeed about the effect of your edits at Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest.

(1) The main practical effect of citing ArbCom cases against me, an Arbitrator, is to ensure I consult and ask for guidance in the matter from my colleagues. You cannot expect me to discuss those votes. You can expect me to ask around, and to take soundings and given that this all speaks to a basic guideline, you can anticipate keen interest in the developing discussion.

(2) The main practical effect of your overwriting my suggested addition within 30 minutes of it being up is to make it look like you feel this matter can be settled in haste. That was before inviting a Talk page discussion, and before you had even commented in any way on the Talk page there. Now, this matter is not going to be decided in haste. It speaks to something fairly fundamental. I'm not going to grudge the time in working this all out.

(3) The main practical effect of your following up a disputed edit with two dozen more, is to make it harder to revert and preserve any good work you may have put in. Well, I have not subsequently edited the page, but that is for obvious reasons, given the above.

Now, on to some theoretical matters.

(4) You are mistaking, in those citations of ArbCom votes from the past, the actual status of any such decisions. We have here on enWP what amounts to separation of powers. The ArbCom does not make policy. As I put it to you once before: As I said, ArbCom rulings are not policy. The principles stated do not have policy status, and you cannot expect them to be drafted in the way policy is. Any actual policy occurs on a page, with associated discussion, and any actual policy document can be edited by concerned parties. (20 August 2006, my User Talk). The actual discussion of policy and guideline has to be in the open forum of a Talk page. You would have been much better advised to have linked to that whole discussion, including your final comment I understand then, that this proposed principle is to be looked at and applied in the context of this ArbCom case only. Which surely has the implication that if the principle is not passed, that also is not to be read in too wide a context.

(5) To the extent that Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest is currently, and was previously, a quite separate page with a different scope, bringing the proposed merge in as an issue is not helping me. The names of the two pages have been recently been changed, and (as ever) matters here are dynamic. But if you want to see the merge, why not argue for that as a separate discussion? It is not clarifying, to cross the threads of discussion on WP:COI.

(6) I note that Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest says nothing about declaring an interest. That, possibly, is an omission that should be looked into. It does say If you feel it is necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite an actual or apparent conflict of interest on your part, we strongly encourage you to submit content (changes or additions to articles or subsections of articles) for community review. Since declarations of interest are a common feature of decent conduct, in all walks of life, it is perhaps a little odd that nothing is made of them on the page. The tone of the page is fairly stern, and negative. I believe that is as it should be. What I read into the passage just cited is this: to submit content is some sort of surrogate for a declaration of interest. Presumably one can attach such a declaration, as some sort of explanation. Given the general deprecation of editing with a COI, one does need a reason to be editing at all in places where the COI may be 'apparent', if only apparent in the mind of the editor. Absent a general clarification of the involved points, I do doubt that the proposed merge of the two pages relating to COI will be a big success. I don't see that the current Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest does much at all to mitigate the state of editing while subject to a conflict of interest. I would be worried if it did, frankly.

This all seemed to be excessive to put on WP:COI; if there comes a need to move it all back there, well, moved it should be.

Charles Matthews 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Reply to your questions:

(1) and (4) Although the ArbCom does not set policy, their rulings represent the consensus of the community at large. That is why I was surprised to see wording that contradicted that implied consensus. Having said that, I think that an open discussion on the subject is healthy and very much needed.

(2) There is no intention to haste the process. We are making good progress in finding wording that we can agree upon.

(3) The edits I made to other sections that are not disputed, are easily identifiable, so it should not a be problem. As I see it, we are quite close to finding a wording that captures the concerns that we want to express about this issue. As for your comment about my not discussing my edit in talk first, I understand that it may have been not the most polite. Point taken.

(5) As for the merge, I believe that less is more in these situations: a good, non-verbose guideline about this subject, can be handled in one article better than in two. See for example the valiant effort at WP:ATT that attempts to merge WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. We need more of these efforts, no less, MO.

(6) Wording about declaring a conflict would be an important addition. Note that in the past we got into trouble with the userboxes, so we have to be cautious on how we word it as to not to open the proverbial can of worms.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are quite wrong about (1), (2), (3). I think your position is quite serious. You have an apparent conflict of interest here, and are lawyering about it, in my view.

We are making good progress in finding wording that we can agree upon is an optimistic bulletin, but exactly what are we agreed on? Your assumption seems to be that 24 hours is a long time in this matter.

Your assumption is still that ArbCom votes are relevant, while in fact the whole matter needs to be aired, ab initio, before anything much can be concluded about policy. I think you are very much ill-advised, in this business, to say such things, rather than to reflect on the actual wording of Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and the actual scope of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Charles Matthews 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the sudden lack of assumption of good faith? I have made my arguments in the open, and these are being discussed openly. Are you saying that I should not participate in editing the guideline? I have made any necessary disclosures, and, as a long standing member of the community, my arguments should be assessed on their merits. What is needed is that more editors join in and contribute to the discussion, otherwise this becomes personal and should not be such. (I take exception on your assessment of lawyering, I could easily argue similarly about your comments.) I would suggest that the discussion about this issue continues at WP:COI talk page, rather than here. It may take time, but eventually WP:COI will get there, as has happened to other such efforts. Disputes such as these are what makes this project excellent: eventually common sense prevails, and consesus emerges. It may take time, but we'll get there eventually. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You may treat me with suspicion, Charles. That is your choice. Nontheless, I expect that you address my arguments on their merits. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See my recent edit on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, addressing your disregard for policy. Charles Matthews 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I responded to you there as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment in Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, I will no longer edit that guideline to dispel any concerns editors may have. But note that Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest is a guideline (widely discussed and edited recently, by the way) and not a policy. So your accusation about disregard for policy, is in my opinion, disingenuous. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Woods

My apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this (and any advice on that is welcome), but can you check out the discussion at the end of the discussion page for Tiger Woods? It's not gotten too ugly yet, but since you may have experience with one of these editors, I thought I'd give you a heads up to see if it can be nipped in the bud. (I don't contribute to the page other than minor edits, so it's not an issue directly affecting me - just someone being. . .less than civil.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. --TheOtherBob 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Any time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Type specimens

Hi Jossi, that would be great! I would be happy to send you a Quark file. Her is my process: set in Quark (I know it better than InDeisgn and like its spacing but both a great; then I save an EPS, open it in Illustrator, change file size to 2.75" x 3.25" select all, save type as outlines, save file in ".svg" format and upload. there are many ways of getting to the same place. Take a look at the Gotham (typeface) page, that person dragged one of my specimens and used it as a template, in, I think, Illustrator. I don't think they have to march in perfect lockstep, just feel related and somewhat unified, enough so that the experience is focussed on the type, not distracted by the variation in format. Here are some you could check out: FF Scala, FF Scala Sans, Sabon, Frutiger, Garamond, Bodoni, Mistral, Cooper Black, Georgia, Times New Roman, Goudy Old Style, Palatino, Hoefler Text, Trajan (typeface), Janson, Verdana, Charcoal, Lucida Grande, Bastard, Didot, Courier, Bembo, Franklin Gothic, Univers, Century Schoolbook, City, Trebuchet, FF Meta, Akzidenz Grotesk, Albertus, Brush Script, Skia, Comic Sans, Curlz, Optima, and, how we crossed paths: Copperplate Gothic. Best, Jim CApitol3 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you so that you can send me the template. I use inDesign, but will be able to import it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops?

You seem to have deleted my userpage! Can I have it back? ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:D --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection policy

You recently semi-protected a few pages based on what someone added to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, but I don't think two days of discussion by five users or so constitutes consensus - there were objections on the page it seems anyway. I don't want to wheel war with you so I'd ask that you unprotect those pages as there is indeed no such consensus for such a proposal, as this is veering off sharply from the intended purpose of semi-protection. I'll leave a note on John254's page as well telling him of this. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which pages are you referring to? Feel free to unprotect if you think it appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy has already been unprotected, it would be Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I'm the sort to not wheel war if it's at all possible (and the world won't end if these are protected for only a day, of course, so I'd appreciate if it you could do this in an act of good faith :D. Danke. Cowman109^Talk 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected, but I was responding to a request based on the underatsnding that policy pages should remain sprotected. I will leave this in your hands. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Therapies

Please could the AfD on Crazy_Therapies_(book) be closed now? Only it seems to have gone on for ages, an AfD debate is not supposed to go on this long, surely.

Smeelgova may have gone but -I- still care about this article:)Merkinsmum 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot close it, as I am the nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Traffic deletion

I want to contest the deletion of the page for Air Traffic. You speedily deleted it under criterion 4, but from what I understand this applies only if the article is the same as what was previously deleted, which is not true for this case. The page was deleted before for not citing sources and for not meting the criteria for WP:BAND, but the article you deleted had both sources and met at least 3 of the criteria.

If not restore it to where it was before, can you at least put it under my user page?

Neonpaul 10:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored. I will take a look in a week or so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosarivo and golden ratio

Jossi, can you take a look at the recent info that I've been finding and citing in Talk:golden ratio and decide what you want to do? It seems very clear that Rosarivo's "golden" number is 2:3 not phi, so a number of articles need work to propertly reflect this. I took the bit out of golden ratio again, because it clearlly doesn't belong there, in light of the reference that says he is referring to 2:3. Dicklyon 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Active' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has finished please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox for type specimen pages

Hi Jossi, over the past weekend atanamir and I have had an exchange about infoboxes. Mea culpa, my initial dislike I realize was a visual reaction, not about content. The earlier box seemed visually noisy in a place that needed some quiet to let the letters come to the fore. The new infobox is quieter, less constraining. You can take a look here: User:Atanamir/TypeBox. And, thanks for being gentle with this newbie. Jim CApitol3 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me, Jim. I would make both the top and bottom svg files. Also, make them of larger dimensions in size (it will not increase the file size), so that when people click on the image they get to see a large version for details. Simply apply a transform and scale them to larger dimension before exporting ot SVG. When you have it, please send me the tamplates via email, so I can start making a few for trhese typefaces that lack them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Hi Jossi, could you take a look at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BostonMA (talk • contribs) .

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube at AN

Jossi, a Youtube discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard: [8]. Sandy (Talk) 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. A disaster in the making... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New larger type specimens

Hi Jossi, I see your point on scale of the specimens. Please take a look at Requiem Text and let me know if this is in the right direction. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent..! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Psychohistorian

Brimba 05:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 09:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannity

There is a discussion about allowing an editorial to be used for a criticism of Hannity on the Sean Hannity page. Can you come give an opinion? --PTR 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's on the discussion page in the Removed text from Controversy section to this page section. --PTR 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Conway

I'm doing a little RC patrol, and have a speedy delete issue if you're around. Check out the history on Lindsay Conway - we can't get the tag to stick because the author keeps reverting. Can you review? (I'm not going to add the tag back; I don't want to end up feeding the...you know.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I think someone else got it. --TheOtherBob 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Pinto

FYI: You closed this AfD without resolving the other article nominated, Gardening Leave. DesertSky85451 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have deleted that stub as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing pay-to-view sources

I have a question that you are likely to have the answer to (actually I might have a couple later as well as I am trying to pin something down). I seem to remember that you can not cite a source that requires either payment, or registration to view, assuming that the source is online, but so far I have been unable to find any such policy. However, it is also possible that my memory is entirely incorrect on that point. Can you shed any light on the subject? Thanks, Brimba 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive vandal

Thanks for watching my talk page for those comments. I notice he did the same to you - if you happen to spot any more from the same IP let me know and I'll block it. Regards, Chuq 06:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to add screenshot

How should I add a screenshot of the program to Adobe Digital Editions. What should be the copyright and fair to use description of the image. --Tanaeem 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal page

It seems that another sockpuppet of the anonymous user from today has erased a large section from the page. User 87.196.215,141. I suppose there is no problem calling something nonsense but there was no ongoing debate allowing the original editor to state his views etc. I thought you'd like to know. Evlekis 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] wikEd

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Hulao Pass

For some reason you reverted my addition to this article here [9], while I'm not trying to be hostile, may I ask why I was reverted? _dk 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Rumsfeld and User talk:203.55.191.65

I've removed the warning you placed on User:203.55.191.65's talk page. Sadly, it appears to be a true fact that Donald Rumsfeld actually was the 2003 recipient of the Foot in Mouth award so that wasn't vandalism.

Atlant 12:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributory Copyright Infringement: France 3 Video

Hi Jossi,

Wikipedia still has a policy of preventing linking to copyrighted works where the copyrighted work is displayed without authorization. In this case, television station "France 3" still holds copyright. The issue is not how many other sites link to this work, but Wikipedia's own policy in the matter. People keep adding links to the video on-line in the Voyage article. I request that you redact them and make the users on the page aware of Wikipedia policy. Sm1969 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, can you take a look at the Voyage article? I believe they are still trying to skirt the contributory copyright infringement and we have gone through several reverts now. Sm1969 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Sözler

I notice that you deleted this as patent nonsense. That may well be true—certainly I don’t speak Turkish and can’t tell. But would you mind explaining in what way the article was patent nonsense? Clearly the subject is notable. —Ian Spackman 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was not in English. If the subject is notable, someone will create it at some point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Patent nonsense <> foreign language. The article was tagged as {{[[Template::template:notenglish|:template:notenglish]]}}. Perhaps you didn’t read the template? Or perhaps you misunderstood it and it should be rewritten? That is quite possible. By the way, do you speak Turkish? —Ian Spackman 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We can restore it. Let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject was undoubtably one which the encyclopedia should cover. The article may well have been patent nonsense: how would I know? How would you know? (Unless you can read Turkish, which is not a claim you make on your user page.) My key worry, however, is not the deletion of this particular article, but rather the suspicion that the template is not worded in such a way as to make it clear to a passing admin that such articles are being considered (with a great deal of sceptism—most, but by no means all of them are crap, copy-vio or both) for translation/improvement/deletion. And that the decision will be made within a couple of weeks. If that wasn’t instantly clear to you then then the wording of the template probably needs to be improved. I have started a conversation on that on the talk page. I am sure that your comments will be welcomed there. Best wishes, —Ian Spackman 01:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. I have undeleted it as requested. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello ≈ jossi ≈. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on 3RR for multiple edits

Jossi, What does one do when there are multiple edits blanking out whole sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=87259425&oldid=87178532 Riveros11 has had other warnings but this is the first time he has done whole sections in multiple edits. Can you advice me on what to do beyond the rev. of the edits. PEACETalkAbout 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look. And you can call me Jossi. I am an admin, but that is not a title, but a duty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous

Do you have an opinion n this re 3RR blocking? William M. Connolley 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Both editors need to stop editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Both may have been acting in good faith, William. I would suggest giving both amnesty, and given the specifics of the legal imbroglio, to err on the side of caution and not link to any possible copyvios from that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I respect your decision User:Jossi and it actually seems fair, and I do like the way you have edited the article recently and I also think that that seems fair, don't you think someone else should have closed the 3RR violation section? Particularly given your close association to the article and history of editing it as well? I had thought that was the point of bringing something to the Administrators Noticboard, to get an impartial look at something? But again, thank you for your fair decision, and fair recent spate of edits on the article. Yours, Smeelgova 19:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

Another admin looked at it and agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you enormously! I think one thing is unclear: two entities have asserted copyright:

1. 1 one implicitly (France 3 television) and
2. 2 one explicitly (Landmark Education, for use of its material)

No one disputes that "France 3" television still holds copyright, and under WIkipedia copyvio policy, the editor wishing to add the link has the duty to investigate that the link target is reasonably free of copyvios. This issue had been brought up repeatedly prior to the 3RR complaint.

Thanks for your verdict. My question now: Instructions are once again on the web page how to get illegal material. Can someone please take that down?

Sm1969 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page. I have explained how this can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Talk page. I don't see why you are telling people how to get copyrighted material of "France 3" television? That is, effectively, putting up links to copyrighted material, and even telling them that it is there. The fact that EFF does this is irrelevant. Wikipedia has its own policy. Where do we disagree? Sm1969 02:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sm1969's prior argument was that linking to a page with suspected copyright infringement consists of contributory copyright infringement, when Landmark clearly has no copyright claim over the video, and France 3 has made no objection as shown in the Motion to Quash. Now, he is complaining about referencing links, that reference the location of the video. Surely this is completely legal, and surely no one is going to go around suing the person who is pointing to the person who is referencing the location of the video. I mean, that just sounds terribly convoluted and frivolous. Smeelgova 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Whether "France 3" has made an objection or not in the motion to quash is irrelevant. The Wikipedia policy states that they must give permission. I am complaining about telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. The intent of the Wikipedia policy is to prevent contributory copyright infringement, to prevent telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. The Wikipedia policy is very clear--you need sound basis to believe they released copyright, and you do not have it. The people they would sue are those with deep pockets, not some little link poster, but that is irrelevant to the policy underlying Wikipedia's policy. Sm1969 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. So maybe an argument can be made for not linking to the site that has the video itself, but linking to sites that link to the video, there is no liability here. Smeelgova 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Just be sure that language is not telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. Sm1969 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you take your dicussion to one of your talk pages or to the article talks's page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The article's talk page would be appropriate, though ironically it seems we may actually be coming to a consensus here. Smeelgova 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Jossi, I appreciate your stopping by the BK page. However, please take a look at the version by riveros11 (18:37 nov11) As you pointed out, there is a section which may need to be re-written (extensive quote) however, the rest of the article has reliable sources in it. I believe you edit it a version which was changed by user talkabout. That version lacks reliable sources. At it stands right now, user Brahmakuris.info took the {sprotect} tag out, user talkabout has changed the previous version (vandalized the page) as discussed in the Talk page. Please note that Brahmakumaris.info and user TalkAbout are in the same group. Their animosity towards Brahma Kumaris is well documented in the archives. I would like to request the {sprotect} tag to be placed again and to revert changes to the one which has reliable sources, namely the version by riveros11 (18:37, nov 11) As you pointed out, the section marked to be re-written will be re-written. Thank you, 72.91.4.91 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7 /riveros11

Dear Jossi,

Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Three days is quite minimal. Be generous and wait a few more days. You can place a note that "unless sources are provided by such and such date, the material in secton X and sction Y will be removed." That way it is transparent and you give notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Before going ahead so, can we just clarify, very specifically, the issues of self-published material I have raised on the topic talk page please. IMHO, Luis has pretty mush steamrollered through a re-write of the article based on the refusal of these which I think is quite unfair.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Luis Riveros and Request to Jossi

Luis, to state that I have never provide a single reliable resource is laughable. Look back through the history of the topic and discussion page and anyone will see that I provide endless citations in balance mostly pro-BKWSU, academic or impartial. Yes, agreed, I mostly built this topic. If you look back at the original article prior to your re-write according to BKWSU PR, it is almost entirely verbatim BKWSU teachings - [10] references; [11], comparison [12] or through the Discussion pages anyone can see my input. You are being utterly dishonest and making prejudicial allegations you cannot support in an attempt to reach your goal.

Perhaps you could help here Jossi.

In Wikipedia:Verifiability [13] it states that, "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, 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, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."

Luis has claimed that this only refers to the author(s) themselves using the material. I believe this is entirely wrong.

Luis has point blankly refused to allow any citation from BKWSU published material which in essence, of course, make fully public their teachings and beliefs even though the very same publications are used by the academics.

My question here is would such self-published material allow "reasonable" use of BKWSU published material where it is clearly and specifically referenced in a manner that anyone could purchase a book or attend one of their 7,000 centers and request a copy of said materials to check references? For example;

• specific scriptural references or other publicly available materials and
• the organization's own websites?

BK Luis has stated that it is only acceptable if it is easily downloadable but, of course, refuses to accept that if it is downloadable from http://www.brahmakumaris.info even though it is clearly BKWSU produced material, e.g. [14] or [15] where a BK produced teaching aid states End of the World/Destruction in 1976 after 40 years Confluence Age etc.

It is understandable why the BKWSU might want to bury this information but I believe in the public interest for it to remain.

Lastly, what group exactly am I meant to be a part of with any other contributor!?!

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 09:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding on the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jossi and Sethie,

As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.

There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi,

Response to Riveros11 is here:[16] Thanks..PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you Jossi if you can follow non-indented text ... I find it too difficult to do so. I'd really like this issue of citations put to bed and the topic be allowed to return to some semblence of reasonableness. Let's be frank, the BKs dont want to allow BKWSU self-published material because Western elements of the BKWSU think some of it is too wild for the public to swallow, e.g all the channelled messages, mediumship, millenarianist stuff. Actually, the academics referenced neatly describe this internal schism between the hard core and the new agey.

I don't expect you to trawl through the references/bibliography/discussion pages BUT the references and citations are specific and endless. It has all been covered IF anyone is actually willing to read the material. And, all the accusations aside, I have and I provided 95% of those references. Even the ones the BKs are using. A wiki topic is not required to be a copy and paste out of some sociologists' lecture, especially when the topic races sharply outside of sociology's ground. 195.82.106.244 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Ummmmm not sure if this is the right place to talk to you back for welcoming me on my own user page but anyway thanks for the welcome hehe I find Wikipedia very helpful and I believe wikis are the next step on the evolution of free and accessible content. I'll try to contribute when I can, mostly I think I'll be just doing minor edits (typos and stuff). Or maybe if something important from the Philippines or related to it happens. Thanks again! (four tildes i hope i got it right) Berserkerz Crit 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you need any assistance, drop me a note. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, please take a look

Hi, a user with whom you are familiar was warned [17] about this edit. Most recently he made this edit referring to another user's signature as "splat". I'm sory to bother you, but please take a look. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your intervention. --BostonMA ^talk 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anytime. As always, one attracts more bees with honey than with vinegar. See: User_talk:ALM_scientist#Request. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

True. But then you can't drive a nail without a hammer either.DocEss 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to escalate things unnecessarily. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ok ok . Message received and acknowledged.DocEss 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voyage video, torrent

• I understand your recent edit, I was simply trying to give User:Grub and User:Sm1969 a chance to have some open communication and interact. But it was not my initial edit in the first place, at any rate. Yours, Smeelgova 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

Good luck with that! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

Is there a way to go for an RfC or arbcom on this or something? Two different members of the BLP board have expressed different opinions; we need some closure. I think we also need to have a substantative thing to say to the IPs: "look, this is Wikipedia's official decision, like it or lump it." Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, an RfC would be the next step. You can place one at WP:RFC/P ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Baha Faith

Bahá faith I believe meets the criteria for speedy delete, yet the creator of the page keeps removing the tag. Would you be willing to take a look at it? If not could you point me where to go? peace Sethie 02:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

lol- the origonal post said it was founded in 2006... When I pointed this out as a reason why it was not notable- he changed the date! Sethie 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to Bahá'í Faith ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow- not a solution I anticipated. I'll let you know if anything else happens. Peace Sethie 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

While my comment on User talk:DocEss about winding people up did not attack any specific editor, I agree that it was out of order and I apologise to you and to the community.--Anthony.bradbury 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, and having a conducive environment for editing requires restrain in the way we express our opinions on talk pages. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, as you probably realised, my comment relating to forty years of argument was not meant to apply to wikipedians; wiki, after all, has not been here for forty years.--Anthony.bradbury 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma Kumaris

Dear Jossi, Is is possible to sprotect the page again? User .244 keeps changing it without previous discussion. I reverted back to an earlier version and the page is reverted again by him. I placed a vandalism tag in his talk page after warning him in the BK talk page without any success. He has placed a vandal warning in my talk page as well after I placed one in his (after warning him.)

It is becoming a nuisance to deal with this problem since I have placed reliable sources all along and user .244 hasn't been able to produce anything yet. As you recall, Friday is the deadline for him. User .244 is intent in damaging the image of Brahma Kumaris. He refuses to use reliable sources as primary means to write this article. I have produced plenty of this kind of material. Why he cannot follow this?

Your help on this is truly appreciated

Thank you, avyakt7 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

While visiting your user page for ideas for my own (I stole your tabs, if that is ok...), I noticed an error in your tabs while at your "Artwork" page. The Wikipedia tab was a different name (Wikipedia instead of My work @ Wikipedia), and the page it linked to had not been created. I edited it to make it correct, if that is ok.

Charlesblack 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Jossi,

I am writing to you again since you are more familiar with the issues we have in that page. User .244 continues to modify the main page. The tags you placed in the article are gone. Moreover, I can place athird warning for vandalism in his talk page, but he will do the same to mine. What alternative do I have? As I said before, user .244 has started this page in wikipedia and he is against our organization. I have supplied reliable sources in the page which is being changed by him. Even the tags you placed are gone now.

User brahmakuris.info has edited all these pages [[18]] on the 15th November that used to link to this page and replaced them all with identical text. I believe this is called a "forest fire". I request that this is looked into.

Also, please take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris This is the page that has been mirrored. It was started by user .244 as well. Could you check if 195.82.106.244 is a sockpuppet of brahmakumaris.info?

As I checked with you before, I will delete headers without reliable sources this Saturday. Hope to count with your support on this.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the above mentioned pages, and I would like to add to the list of "charges" that Bhramakumaris.info archived the discussion page with a lot of current discusions going on. Sethie 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am going back in to contribute to the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. I have agree fine to work the citation the dominant contributor Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros is proposing. Much of my edit is in paraphrasing untidy verbatim copy and paste quotation into neater prose. Plpease note the bogus vandalism accusation made.

Riveros had be blocked on the basis of accusation of "not being willing to discuss changes". Wiki records will show that I instigated both a Request for Mediation and a Request for Arbitration with Riveros11 but on both occasions he refused to participate. You and another admin have cited Wiki policy of allowing self-published material which the other editor refuses to accept. I have even accept using the academic citation he suggests but am still subject to skillfully crafted ad hominen attacks by this member of the religious group in question. Please see discussion pages. It is laughable that I am the one being accused on not being willing to discuss!

Yes, it bores the pants of me too ...

So easy on that trigger finger until you have a better overview of what is really going on. Riveros11 seem to have sussed out the miracle of slapping Vandalism warnings on anyone that questions his worldview. 195.82.106.244 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I invite you both to pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve your differences. Please use your user:talk pages, to the article's talk page to continue your conversation, and remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I have complied with your suggestion of giving additional days for .244 reliable sources. He has not provided any. He has reverted the page again and blanked his talk page so no one can see that he was blocked before. He has placed 2 warnings in my talk page so he is waiting for me to revert it so I could be blocked. He sent me a message about going into arbitration which I have agreed. I have no heard from him since. Is there any other avenue that I could take? I really do not mind if that article is not there...It wasn't Brahma Kumaris idea to have it there...it was the idea of someone who is against this movement. Could this article be taken off line? (at least while in arbitration) It is not fair to have a version which is innacurate and detrimental to us. Hope to hear from you. avyakt7 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take Notice re Smeelgova's edits: Articles regarding ongoing enterprises, ArbCom ruling

Hi Jossi,

Per the URL below which discusses an ArbCom ruling Smeelgova was involved in, poorly souced negative material may be reverted as an exception to 3RR. Smeelgova has repeatedly added such poorly sourced negative information, in the case of Sweden unsourced and in the case of Austria, refuted by the US State Department's own web page. Here is the URL and text of the ArbCom ruling involving Smeelgova, and then I have a question for you at the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

[edit] Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: I am committed to avoiding edit-warring, and I believe the ArbCom ruling above is on-point for Smeelgova's current edits. If I revert these changes, will you support me any forthcoming 3RR report, and, further, can you assist in stopping Smeelgova's behaviour? I'm at my wit's end with Smeelgova. Sm1969 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings are specific to each case and are not policy. If the current dispute ends up in arbitration, ArbCom members may take previous rulings into account. As with many articles abut which there are strong POVs at play, there is no much else to do than finding a way to collaborate constructively. 3RRs situations will be evaluated by admins in a case by case basis, so if you find yourself in that position, you can raise your arguments at that time. Note that it takes two to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a general principal I can invoke that poorly sourced and, particularly, unsourced negative materials pertaining to an ongoing enterprise (here: Landmark Education) may be redacted without a 3RR being cited against me, if it truly and provably is unsourced? Can't I raise that as a successful defense to an accusation of edit warring/3RR? Granted, I take the risk in a specific instance if I can't prove the negative material is unsourced, but isn't this a specific basis for defense from 3RR/edit-warring? Sm1969 03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what we are seeing here is a flawed ends-justify-the-means attempted reasoning to rationalize violating 3RR numerous times on the part of User:Sm1969. I myself have learned this the hard way, I admit, but now I try to watch myself and think and count up my edit history patterns before pressing "save". It appears that User:Sm1969 feels that these rules do not apply to him, when he has other types of arguments to attempt to justify breaking 3RR, time and time again. Smeelgova 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

No, Smeelgova, the six edits you cited in the 3RR report are all unsourced--and one directly conflicted by the Official US State Department web page, as I brought up to you. No, you have not learned. Your bringing in the six UNSOURCED edits, in violation of the ArbCom policy that you were warned about. The are black-and-white UNSOURCED and the ArbCom ruling is very clear. You should be cited for 3RR for continually bringing in the same UNSOURCED edits. I hope that Admin Jossi and Admin Connelley look at your specific edits and see my report that they are totally UNSOURCED and look at the ArbCom ruling. Sm1969 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, ArbCom made this an explicit exception to 3RR because the kinds of highly negative TOTALLY UNSOURCED edits damage the organization so affected and damage Wikipedia. ArbCom's precise language is that such edits may be reverted IMMEDIATELY. These are black-and-white UNSOURCED edits. They say NOTHING about Landmark Education. Here is the precise ArbCom quote cited above: "As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule."

Out of respect for not clogging up User:Jossi's talk page again, which I know he doesn't appreciate, this will be my last comment here. But the fact is, we actually had a relatively good dialogue going on at the article's talk page, before you started up your reverting campaign again, summarily removing material that was sourced, without letting the dialogue play out on the talk page. I don't know how to interact and edit when sourced information is summarily removed without leaving time for discussion on the talk page or input from other editors. Smeelgova 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Why don't you redact the 3RR report. As you can see, you may get cited for this. Sm1969 05:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Jossi: Please take it as a good faith mistake

I thought I could rely on ArbCom. Smeelgova used my question to you as an opportunity to launch a 3RR report against me. I would appreciate your intervening in my 3RR case, filed by Smeelgova. As I have noted, all six of Smeelgova's edits cited in the report are in direct violation of the ArbCom ruling. I believe Smeelgova should be cited for a 3RR for continually bringing in the same unsourced negative material--where the remedy is NOT to add "fact" or "citation" to it, per ArbCom, but to remove it until it can be source. I have learned that I can NOT rely on ArbCom, but if I have made a mistake here, please intervene in the 3RR against me and note that I was acting in good faith, believing I could rely on ArbCom ruling. I know this whole episode feels rather juvenile, but I am doing my best. I believe Smeelgova's bringing in the same unsourced negative information--when explicitly told not to--in violation of the ArbCom ruling, is the real 3RR offense.

Again, I ask you to look at the details. I know you are tired of dealing with Smeelgova and me, but I implore you to look at the details and specifics, one more time and intervene in my 3RR.

Sm1969 06:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)