User talk:Jossi

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #137

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

28th President of the United States

~ Post new messages to the bottom of the page ~ ~ Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here ~ ~ Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassing me or others ~ Comments which fail to follow these requests may be immediately deleted

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Tip of the day...

Graphics Lab

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources
Advice Uploading standards Software Tutorials SVG Project map Related projects Wikigraphist abilities News Stale/Archival Research and Development

The Graphics Lab is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages: Illustrations, Photographs and Maps.

The Graphics Lab helps improve all graphical content stored on Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia. For examples of work done by the Graphics Lab, see the archives of past work. For questions or suggestions, use the talk pages: Talk:Graphics Lab, Talk:Illustrations, Talk:Photographs and Talk:Maps.

Interested in helping out? Check out the uploading standards, then go to one of the workshops you are skilled at, and lend a hand. You can also add your entry to Wikigraphist abilities and yourself to Category:Wikigraphists. You can also add {{User Wikigraphist}} or {{Mbox Wikigraphist}} to your user page.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Comment on article

I was recently mentioned in an on-line article off-wiki.

This is my response

You may also want to read the request for advice I placed at the Village Pump a few weeks ago here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 5#Request for support and advice you ask for advice. My advice is to stop editing any article or policy that is problematic for Wikipedia's reputation or yours. People have already told you which pages those are. Trust their judgement over yours on the issue. The entire point of COI is that the person who has one doesn't see it and therefore needs to avoid editing certain things because they are dead sure they are being neutral when in fact they are not. Don't edit subjects close to you. You thought you were immune from being human? Nope, just like the rest of us, when you open your eyes you see the world from your point of view. You also asked for support. Well, know that I'm glad when I see you involved on a page because I find your contributions to usually be accurate, helpful, balanced, and fair. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I haven't tried to figure out what this latest episode is about. But you have my support and appreciation for the hard and earnest work you've been doing on Wikipedia. If only there was more attention to NPA out there.... Be well and of good cheer. Feel free to contact me by Talk or email. Take care of yourself, as you have by asking for support, b'hatzlakhah, HG | Talk 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Cla68 has a conflict of interest here, as he has been in contact with Metz before, but chose to add Metz's allegations to the "criticism of Wikipedia" article; I do not think that any criticism should be added unless it has been identified as a notable criticism by sources independent of the originating publication. But then, Cla68 did not see a conflict in promoting the linking of an interview with him to that article, accusing those who pointed out factual errors in the interview of having a conflict in not wanting it there, so perhaps he's the one whose understanding of COI is off-base. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, it is clear that Jossi has a COI regarding some things. Whether Cla68 has a COI regarding a certain newspaper or one of its reporters is another matter. And with regard to a COI on the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article; we ALL have a COI there! WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So is my argeement that there is a COI off-base? I think not. Stop trying to find excuses, folks: If Jossi were KDBuffalo, we'd all be at his throat.

Anyway, if you'll notice, I don't edit the IRS article because in COI cases, perception is 9 points of the "law". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article tries to read into a few facts a whole series of unverified conclusions. I have had a number of occasions to observe Jossi's work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I have always admired his contributions, and his willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there Jossi, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Me das lastima ver lo que le esta pasando con Maharaji. Si le puedo ayudar, solo decirmelo. Pues Maharaji no es uno de los malos y las cosas que sele acusan tampoco son buenas. Vaya pues, SqueakBox 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gracias, SqueakBox. Te agradezco tus palabras. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

This too shall pass. Hang in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about The Register.

I think the article by The Register is largely my fault.

I don't know anything about you or Prem Rawat, and told Cade nothing about that.

However, this all seems to have begun because I e-mailed The Register about the hoax, Brahmanical See, which asserted that Hinduism is organized like Catholicism (basically comparing the Maharaj to the Pope). I thought it would be good for such criticism of Wikipedia to be published because it seems to encourage Wikipedia to improve.

I spoke with Cade over the phone for a while about it. Today, he sent me a link to the article in question via e-mail and I was surprised to see that it had nothing to do with Brahmanical See, but appeared to just be conspiracy theorism about you.

Now, even though my contact with Mr. Metz had nothing to do with you, it seems true that he would've never been creating these conspiracy theories if I had never e-mailed him to begin with.

I hope nobody bothers you about this.

My suggestion: If you face a persistent amount of harassment, you may be able to seek a legal injunction against The Register or Mr. Metz for harassment, libel, or defamation of character.

For now, I'm somewhat paranoid because he has my real name and contact info. I'm not an admin, but since I'm supporting you here, god knows there's a good chance I will end up in one of his future conspiracy theories. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel the Register article is bad editorial, and shows a profound lack of knowledge in how Wikipedia actually works, so hopefully it won't be taken as reliable. I think what Zenwhat said above when he called it "conspiracy theorism" hits the nail on the head. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read the Register article carefully and I think it's well written. The major point it makes - that a few well placed Wikipedians wield inordinate influence - is indeed true. The issue is not if there is a "cult" article being whitewashed, rather it's about the fact that wiki leaders claim tthe wiki is egalitarian, but it's really not. The Reggister likes to tweak hypocrites and in the Wiki, they have found what they feel is a fair target. Wringly or rightly, the Reg is fixated on spotlighted wiki-misteps. We should take a step back and try to truly understand why they are this way. Their views about wiki are a mirror of the wiki. If we don;t like what we see, perhaps we should improve? 66.96.211.167 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. This is because after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of edits, editors get reputations. When editors continually do good work, continually show good judgment, continually show dedication to the aims of this project, naturally their word means more to those who know that person than for some random person who comes along. Wikipedia is egalitarian in that anyone can contribute and has the right to build a reputation that makes their words listened to. The idea of Wikipedia is not that everyone who contributes is equal and anyone who comes along is immediately welcomed with open arms if they engage in behavior that is questionable. That's not "news" to anyone except those who thought that erroneously to begin with. --David Shankbone 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you're right. That is true. However, based on Jossi's response, I think it's reasonable.

Also, it turns out my apology is totally unnecessary. I e-mailed Metz and he said he's been working on this story for 2 months. Wow. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And he got paid for writing it (presumably). Double wow. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to community feedback, and thank you all for your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=189994816 --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, and see no reason to destroy the hard work of many editors over a period of more than a year. You are most welcome to come and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "You deleted sources, hundreds of copyedits, new material, and the hard work of many editors, including non-involved editors." [1] - The article is better sourced, better NPOV, and restores quite some "destroyed" edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, sorry Francis. You cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand thousands of edits to a version you created more than 14 months ago. That is not the way that Wikipedia works, and you know that better than me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing help. This is my first article. Someone wants to delete it due to neologism/essay/original research. I don't really understand. Do you have any advice for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardens for Living (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to fan the flames

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190068136&oldid=190067433 - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking that the material be incorporated into the article. That template exist for a reason, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The COI policy used to be far clearer than it is now about the possibilities for embarrassing yourself and what you care about. Most people aren't going to read and evaluate each of your edits to see if it is valid. Most people will hear you have an admitted COI and yet refuse to stop influencing and editing the articles you have a COI on. They will claim wikipedia has a double standard. You are not taking appearances into account. You are not following the COI guideline for what is preferred - which is don't edit subjects you are close to. Please stop bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Innocent behavior that has the appearance of criminal behavior can result in going to jail. Appearance is important. Don't make wikipedia appear to not care about admin COI. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. Perceptions count, no doubt. But that does not mean that we should allow these to drive our project.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between actual bias and apprehended bias. By editing the articles about your guru, and COI policies, it seems that you conduct yourself in such a way that fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that you might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues. This is not to say that you display any bias at all, but rather, it could be apprehended that you do. In courts, Judges are presumed to be able to judge all issues equally on their merits, and are presumed to be above prejudice in all matters. Never-the-less, where the potential for apprehended bias occurs, they will recuse themselves from cases, or in extreme cases, a higher court will overturn their decisions. This seems like as good advice as any in this situation. It is not that you have necessarily displayed bias towards your guru, it is that an apprehended bias exists, and perhaps recusal is called for. FiveVryl (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. With the Islam image question, we have responded by creating a page that tells people how to make it so they do not see images. I think that's about the best we can do with that. But it is fully in accord with our COI guideline for you to refrain from editing articles that you are close to. Since you are an admin, it would look good if you also refrained from influencing content; but I can see where not being allowed to express an opinion on the talk page could be too much like letting others run our show. But, gee whiz ... can't you back off for a month on the articles and the talk pages ... not to be able to do that makes it look like this is some sort of ... ummm ... uhhh ... job. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi. I'm sorry you've ended up in the soup on this one; the Register is rarely known to give a subject an even break. Still, I agree with WAS 4.250 here. This is not a question of letting perception drive our project. One of our basic theories is that there are plenty of unbiased people available to work on articles, so that credentialed experts and active participants are not vital for good results. As admins, we are expected to hold ourselves to the highest of standards, and I ask you to do that here by leaving alone the articles where you have a strong personal interest. By my count, you've made over 4,400 edits to pages related to your guru/employer. Let's call that enough for now. William Pietri (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

possibilities

so, i read the article in the register, and i can see it's quite biased against you. however, i think morally, you and others should avoid editing articles that relate to you directly. Religion is a heavy topic, and it brings bias with it; people believe in their religion, and therefore they defend it. i don't think you're doing much wrong, however, i do think that a criticism section should be included. i can see no reason for a lack of inclusion. as the register article itself shows - there's some bias against rawat. that's not my point, however. i'd like you and others to refrain from editing articles that affect you as such, as the bias would cause a conflict of interest for any person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.35.123 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your artwork yesterday.

I like it a lot. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but stumbling back upon your user page and examining it closely was a very pleasent experience indeed. Thanks for sharing it with the community. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx

I think you've taken a step I know must not have been easy.

Anyway, I'm coming here because someone (named Sylviecyn) is apparently very upset about something here: Talk:Prem Rawat#Declaration of intent. I don't know what it is all about, and the remark doesn't seem really suitable for an article talk page. Is there a way to come to a better understanding with this person? If you think I can help, just give me a word, but I'm about to stop for today. It's getting late this side of the ocean. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the remark is not suitable for talk page, it can be moved to my talk page or that person's, although I have no interest in engaging with that person for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Can we do anything about this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

archived

That was bold, and, I think, probably the right thing to do. Thanks. Hesperian 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a notice in that user's talk page. Rather than exacerbate the situation, lending a hand in these disputes may be the better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Link

I obtained the L.A Times articles through ProQuest. If you like I can send you PDF files. If you hav access to ProQuest then you can also obtain them directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate the PDF, I will email you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of:

"Guru's Heliport Bid Backed as Fire Aid" ROBERT W STEWART, Los Angeles Times; Mar 25, 1982; pg. WS1

It's from the "ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)" special collection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The Proquest access I have did not bring that article in my search. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious what this is...

"**Comment to closing admin - Maelefique (talk · contribs) second posting to Wikipedia was to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" ... Are you suggesting that I've only made one other contribution other than the comments/edit suggestions to this article? I thought you'd be able to tell, but that's not correct. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? And what would the relevance of that comment be? Do I need to cite published academic articles from elsewhere to be taken seriously or something? Point you to other WP articles? I'm just not clear on what your point is, if you could please explain. thanks.<insert little happy face here> :) Maelefique (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See your contributions list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have of course seen that, and after looking it over again very carefully, I still did not find answers to the questions I asked you. So if you could, again, just let me know what is the relevance, or point, of that comment you made, to the PR article? Your assertion would seem to be that I've never edited an article here before (again, wrong), and that fact should somehow factor into the weight of my postings or something? Clearly that would be terribly wrong, so I'm hoping there is some other answer. So I would think, at the very least you could explain the comment or retract it. This is the second time I've asked a question and you've seemed to waste my time with an "answer" that does not deal with the question. I try not to do that to you, by asking straight-forward questions, could you try not to do that to me, by simply answering my questions? And if you could, please refrain from pointing me to more links that do not answer the question, (although I do appreciate that this time, the large section of irrelevant text was at least in english, my portuguese is a little rusty so last time it took considerably longer to determine you weren't being helpful) if you could just let me know what you're saying, that would be great. Thanks again for your time. Maelefique (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In deletion discussions, it is customary to alert the closing admin about new accounts. If you have another account, you could have used it. If you have more than one account, you may want to read voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts. As for your participation in th PR article, that is most welcome. But note that as I and others have no way to know that you are editing under an alternate account, and your edit history shows a first edit on Feb 9, 2008, don't be surprised if editors provide links to appropriate guidelines and policies when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, ok, I followed everything but the part about the "closing admin", how do I determine who that is for any particular article? In the case of the PR article, is that you? I am fully aware of the voting and other shows of support and inappropriate use of alternative accounts, thanks for mentioning them though. I used this account specifically only for this article because I felt this article deserved to have my opinion, not cluttered by other edits in other places, which have nothing to do with anything whatsoever in the fields of politics or religion. I have not, nor do I have any intention to play any kind of *puppet games with this, or any other, article. Have I violated some appropriate guidelines or policies that I'm unaware of? Thanks for clearing the rest of that comment up for me. Maelefique (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article

Hi Jossi. Hope you are well. As someone who has some familiarity with the article, although I know you haven't been involved with it for a good while, I was hoping you might be able to stop by and have a look at the current discussion on the external links wording in the article. I am in conflict with two other editors - I think we all have POVs about the wording. Hence, I am trying to bring in indepedent editors/admin to give their comments. Your thoughts on the wording, but also the websites that are being linked to (and whether they are appropriate or not) would be of great value. Regards Appledell (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have still content disputes, why don't you pursue dispute resolution? There are many willing editors that I'm sure will be happy to assist editors there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of Discussion

The page is out of hand ... I'm trying to bring some order. And it's mostly the fault of your boy momento who keeps adding new threads to things we are already discussing. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. It makes it really difficult to follow. You ca propose a refactoring of the page there, but get agreement first. See Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

how does putting all the threads about the photo next to each other make it "really hard to follow"? Same with the lede, and hunts article, and putting all complaints about you under the same heading? What's wrong with that. The page is out of control.

Just don't. Refactoring pages as you are doing is very confusing as it breaks the chronology of posts. Again, if you want to propose doing this, please ask in talk page first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

Hi Jossi, thanks for the welcome. I have a user ID, and the IP edits on the talk page were mine. Since I am currently dealing with similar stuff in another article I chickened out and posted as an IP. I'll stick my head out next time. -- Jayen466 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I am sure you have plenty on your plate right now, I'd be grateful if you could look in on the discussion at Talk:Osho#Falsification_of_sources when you have a mo. Cheers, Jayen466 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost article

I was the last to edit the article, but as you can see by this diff of my two edits, the wording that you question isn't mine. Moreover, you omitted the beginning of the sentence: It has been suggested; so even the author of the article isn't exactly labeling you as anything. Those four words are (arguably) a bit of weasel-wording, but no reader of the article chose to edit them out, for what that's worth.

Also, as a point of information, though I often indulge myself in copyediting of Signpost articles, I'm not in any way associated with that publication (to the extent that any editor can be said to be associated with it). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!

Hi Jossi,

I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for fulfilling my WP:RFPP request. I know admins are the first to get dumped on when something goes wrong and the last to be thanked when something goes right, but I just wanted to let you know I was heartened to see that you're still fighting the good fight, especially after everything that's happened recently.

Anyways, happy wikiing! --jonny-mt 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help to lock Plácido Domingo’s article again

Hi Jossi, The article has been locked 2 consecutive times from last year due to heavy vandalism by anonymous users. Once the lock has been lifting off, they start vandalising again. The final locking expires on 14 January and now vandalism start again. Please look at the history page. We need your help to lock the article again as soon as possible. The vandalism is going on as I am writing this. Hopefully you could lock it longer than usual period. I send this message to Iridescent too. - Jay (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look. Next time, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see enough activity to warrant protection at this time. If this persists, drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been vandalised 6 times from 13 Feb changing the same thing - his year of birth. Me and Voceditenore have to "guard" the article for the past 3 days. 4 of the "activities" happenned today and 2 of them only in less than 10 minutes ago. Look at Request for protection page]. It has been requested early today- Jay (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Jay (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly

Any further back and forth not strictly relevant should be done on our own talkpages. I am serious about my last comment, and I apologise if I was a little shirty earlier. The reason was that I don't appreciate accusations of bias and I did not expect one when editing out of the nationalist sinkholes where I usually, to my sadness, am found. --Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am really trying to understand if such a mention is worthy of inclusion or not. No bad feelings, and I will make efforts not to present my opinions as accusations of bias in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I respect your decision on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy but think you should reconsider. With the republication this is a hot topic in the news (I had submitted to the talk page an article on Danish diplomats who canceled a trip to Iran due to the controversy, but which appears not to have received mention yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi article

Thanks for taking care of Yaoi. An indefinite block was a bit harsh though, in my opinion - after all, that person might grow up, mature, and calm down after only a few days of being blocked, then edit positively with that account.

For future reference, how do I report abusive people to an admin? Casull (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a vandalims only account, probably same as previous anons that got warned. To report disruption, you can do so at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sees blanking vandalism) Ouch, somebody hates you. Same IP as that one fangirl you banned, I take it? Casull (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably should just block 'em.

Looks like another btard sweep like the day before... HalfShadow (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing my userpage. It's nice to know someone is keeping an eye out for me. RC-0722 communicator/kills 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping revert the anon IP

he's keeping you and ClueBot busy. As an FYI, I started a thread yesterday. Travellingcari (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User commons/Administrator

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

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

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Britches talk page

I am trying to reason out a solution for the deletion, and substituted re-direct, of the "UC Riverside ALF Raid" page that you were editing yesterday. I think my reasons are clear. The Britches page has a significant POV issue, in that its principal content is based on events from non-third-party sources. I created the "UC Riverside ALF Raid" page to provide a page that reflected reliable third party reporting on the same events. Talk:Britches_(monkey) --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Dear, I am the Ph.d scholar in south asian studies. Make changes with the reference to the proper source. But the user " Pahari Sahib " always add illegal changes, change original history.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.150.138 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3O

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about 3O: after giving an opinion, just remove the listing from the list and mark in the edit summary box that you did so. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please report at WP:ANI/3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have really placed such a message, but it was removed! Please undo the fourth revert which violates the 3RR. Thank you in advance. Eliko (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was removed is because the administrator that looked into it, did not see the need to intervene. Also note that admins will not revert to a preferred version based on a 3RR report. See WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Waterboarding

"United Nation's" (as you just added to the Waterboarding article should probably be changed to "United Nations," as "Nation's" would imply that there is only one nation. Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe corrected. It now reads: The United Nations' Report..." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question About Warnings

Re: Prem Rawat article and PatW -- Is it appropriate (or even allowed) for me to give him a warning on his User Talk page, or is that reserved for Admins (or just socially left to more experienced users)? Would it be useful? I would always prefer that troublesome users like him and Momento calm down and keep their voicees in the mix, but he is clearly trying to provoke you and it's getting pretty annoying. I would have sent you email but couldn't find a link. Thx. Msalt (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PatW has been already warned many times... but you can always try again, and coming from a fresh perspective, you may find a more successful way to make him understand. Any editor can assist another editor, that is not reserved to admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I am under no delusion that I have the magic words that will get through to him. But who knows, it could happen, and it doesn't cost me any money to try. Even if not, I think there is value in making the community consensus clear from as many different voices as possible, as well as value in naming my own truth rather than sitting quietly. Msalt (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair Reversion

Dear sir, I recently removed a great deal of the Popular Culture section from the Dodo page, on the basis that much of it was utterly and totally irrelevant. I received a note from you (or a bot belonging to you) telling me not to make nonconstructive edits, and one from the fellow who reverted it telling me not to add poorly worded sentences. I find this a tad bit baffling. If Wikipedia users want to keep its pages cluttered with irrelevant trivia, well, so be it--but it has a serious impact on Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Thank you. User:134.173.59.5 —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many articles include trivia sections. Rather that delete these sections outright, you may want to find good sources for these, or improve the article by adding new content or improving existing content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits re. GOOOH

Jossi, I'm curious as to why you would undermine the credibility of my post by calling out that I'm an SPA without actually responding to the content IN the post. Yes, I post fairly infrequently to Wikipedia and thus far only on topics of interest to me, but that in no way should diminish the thought content in my edits/comments. Please remember that:

"The term (SPA) should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment....New users acting in good-faith will often begin to edit topics in which they have an interest. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines."

I feel that I have been unfairly labeled by you without the courtesy of you responding to my reasoning. My hope is that you would evaluate my contributions on their own merit, and not just name call. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.146.249 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice to alert closing admins to the fact that some editors commenting on AfDs have just but a few edits, in partiular if those few edits are on the same subject of the AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

-- I have no issues with you calling out that I appear to be an SPA - the issue is that you did not likewise respond to the points I was making. What is more relevant - the content of my contributions, or how many contributions I've made thus far? No bad blood here, I'd just like the courtesy of a response to the points in my vote. Anything otherwise seems cliquish to me. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Master Bayshun1

I see you only blocked them for 31 hours, you might like to extend this to indefinite. A few minutes after your block they created account User:Master Bayshun2 and carried on vandalising, that account has now been indef blocked. Thanks for your time, Polly (Parrot) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should have blocked indef.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

I'd certainly endorse, and would join in requesting, 1RR on Prem Rawat. NPA and talk page disruption are too objective to be practical, in my opinion. Those issues are best handled directly as they come up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's work on the wording and make a proposal at WP:AN. Here is a start:

Editors are placed in WP:1RR probation on Prem Rawat and other reasonably related pages for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per xxxx) or engaging in disruptive behavior, may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, starting at 48 hours and escalating up to a month. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. All resulting blocks shall be logged at Talk:Prem Rawat/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. 1RR violations and other disruptions to be reported at Talk:Prem Rawat/Article probation#Violations reports

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR per day, per 48 hrs, per week? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't endorse vague language like "disruptions". I think the block duration should be left up to the blocking admin. I don't see any reason for a special log. I'd assumed the "1RR" meant one revert per day, but one per week is OK with me. Let's keep this simple. Unless there's precedenet for those extra steps we can just use the regular mechanisms. I suggest something more like:

Editors are placed in WP:1RR probation on Prem Rawat and articles in category:Prem Rawat for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per week), may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:3RRN

As for the notification, if editors are allowed on "free" revert before being warned it's more like 2RR. We can notify the most frequent editors pre-emptively. I suggest we aim to have this in place when the page protection expires. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Looks good. Do you want an extra pair of eyes on this proposal? If you don't, you can post a WP:AN with both our names as endorsers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse it. Once posted on AN others may have input on how to implement it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll post it this evening - I'll be away from the keyboard most of the day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Drop me a line, I will also be off-wiki for most of the day. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal. (I wrote this earlier, but I must have closed the tab without hitting the 'save' button so I've recreated it now.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WQA

I was about to catch your mixup at the WQA, but you got it yourself (I was going to make the exact same mistake until I thought "wait, how was he blocked tomorrow?"). I was also going to comment though that at the WQA, incidents are not manually archived with archive top/bottom unless they need it (e.g. disruptive conversation that just doesn't stop, frivolous/attack complaints, etc.). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for lending a hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reposting of Previously Deleted Sahaj Marg Page

Dear Jossi,

I hope you are doing well. A "new" user has reposted the twice-previous deleted Sahaj Marg page -- full of unverifiable, unreliable sources and even blogs at the end. Please see this.

Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. I've posted a speedy delete and notices on the "new" user's talk page.

Thanks, Renee Renee (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per WP:SPEEDY G4. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- appreciate the speedy response. Renee (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)