User talk:Jossi/Archive 15

Mazandarani language
I wrote in length both to parthava and 68... something. My take is: Mazandarani is not a dialect of standard Persian. The terminology Mazandarani persian dialect is wrong. mazandarani is a northwestern Iranian language and standard Persian is a southwestern Iranian language. Mazandarani has, nevertheless, has undegone influences from Standard Persian. So the statement that it is unintelligible with standard persian is also not totally truue. it should be " It is not perfectly intelligible with Standadrd persian". I think this would be a good compromise. About the statement that the elderly called Mazandarani language as Gilaki I should say this: Mazandarani and Gilaki are two different languages, but I have had heared this statement from more Mazandarani people. This might be an object of further research and wikipedia's policy does not accept original research. I should say that I do not approve Parthava's editing behavior, but this might be due to his young age. On this issue, he was right. Another thing is that the behavior of Akinmai the Nigerian editor is is not nice either. He reverts anything 68...... writes, (out of presumably personal grudges) without him having profound knowledge of the subject. The article is locked now, but contains wrong information. I think you should correct it in the way I provided and then lock it. If you need more context information, it is provided in the article "Iranian languages".--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

the Da Vinci face
Jossi, back in '05 you contributed Image:Divina proportione.png and some words about it. I'm trying to see what this image has to do with the golden ratio, but I don't find it in a source. Do you know what words came with it, or what lines on it are supposed to represent golden ratios, or anything useful we could say about it? Is there an online source that talks about it anywhere, or a scan of the book it came from? Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a woodcut from the Divina Proportione, (Luca Pacioli 1509, Venice}, which depicts the golden proportion as it applies to the human face. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
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) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Would like comments on revised Hillary Rodham Clinton section
Hello. A while ago you brought up WP:SYN and related issues regarding the Hillary Rodham Clinton section. I've made a series of revisions to it to try to remedy these concerns. If you have a chance, please give it a read now and comment on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton as to your reaction. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks!  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And thanks again, for the barnstar. Wasted Time R (talk)

LesTout.com
It was a terrific experience with wikipedia while creating my first user page with name anblik and then creating a new content for LesTout website. Honestly, I was not very aware of how it works. First the username anblik was not right because that was my org name so I opened a new account with my name, then the writeup for LesTout was not right because the content is being taken from our own LesTout website and not from other site. LesTout website is not a advertising material but consist of many informative articles written by Expert Guides. This site is being created for people with disabilities following Accessibilities section 508 guidelines. I found that the site is being salted. We have prepared the new content for LesTout maintaining wiki markup, so please discuss so that I know the proper way of editing contents in WikiPedia. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivaji Mitra (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Editcountitis
Jossi, please see Talk:Prem Rawat, last bullet of my answer to Msalt. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

List of supercouples
Hello there! I see you made some comments on the List of Supercouples article some time back. The debate has since gone nuclear, and it would be great to have your input again....21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Canons of page construction again
The very first thing to do is to fix the first sentence (fragment), as per comments by me and Fainites. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes... I will be working on it soon... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR
Please look into the 3RR violation here by User:Anishshah19 on 23rd March. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please report at WP:AN/3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi.....for your information, a consensus was reached on Indian religions page and now he is trying to gain a back door entry by making edits that violate that consensus. He is indulging in WP:OR and also guilty of WP:3RR--Anish (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Prem Rawat Case...
Brief, and to the point, if you would like to retract your fourth point regarding my evidence, I have no problem removing mine as well.-- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No harm done. When you posted on my talk page regarding my comment in IfD, you did not make it clear that you were using an SP account. (and neither the closing admin would have). I had no way to know this, and neither the arbCom would have unless you declared it., Arbcom may decide to do a checkuser to verify your assertion, but that would be up to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that WP:SOCK is very specific. The issue is sometimes one related to SOCK, particularly in arbCom cases. You may want to ask the clerk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, this isn't a personal issue for me (more like a professional ethics issue I suppose), and I don't want to make it into one. I just felt we were sort of drifting that way. I have carefully read WP:SOCK and SOCK and I am quite sure that I am in no way violating that policy. If an arbitrator would like to question me further, I have no problem with that. Anyway, if you're happy with your points, I am happy with mine. It's sunny here, hope there too, have a great day! -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

remove the px from the click to get rid of the huge stars
remove the px from the click template to get rid of the huge stars... Ling.Nut (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for Deletion
Because you have contributed to articles on this topic, you may wish to weigh in here. Renee (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
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) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The da Vinci face
Dear Jossi: Can you contribute to this conversation: Golden ratio? Thanks. Hope you are well. Finell (Talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hershel Schachter
Thanks for helping with the semi protection of this article. I really had no idea how to do it.--Chakira (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms
Another editor has added the  template to the article Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuleulf
Hi Jossi, I saw from User:Kuleulf's block log that you blocked him twice for uploading copyrighted images. Now, I don't see any sort of indication that he has learned anything since he's started up again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to check in case I was missing out on something before I nuke all the pictures, give him one last warning, and make it clear that one more image will result in a complete block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Having trouble with a user that won't respect majority opinion.
We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci, one user, dihydrogen monoxide, constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including dihydrogen monoxide (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion.

This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,”

This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12."

The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately.

Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except dihydrogen monoxide agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page.

How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why dihydrogen monoxide seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. DrDownunder (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
There's a question for you at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have these articles on my watchlist, Will, so there is no need to post here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Edit War" on Senso Ryū Aikijūjutsu
Jossi, there is no real edit war on that page, so please unprotect it. There is just one user, User:Tenteisai, who is repeatedly blanking his talk page to remove all warnings from other users, including removing warnings form bots about copyrighted images. He also blanks comments on the article's talk page. He also removes citation needed tags from the article indiscriminately. He also removes the notability tag on the basis that the article is fully referenced - indicating that he doesn't understand the difference between notability and being cited. He has stated that he rejects the Wikipedia guidelines. Protecting the article is uncalled for and not helpful in this situation. That user needs a short block and a message from an admin to follow Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a typical edit-war situation. Thank you. --David from Downunder (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert Temazepam
The article is cluttered with unrelated, tangential and anecdotal references. Cognitive behavioral therapy doesn't belong there. KGB antics don't belong there either. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts: Temazepam
The Temazepam page is useless for patients, e.g. old people, who want to know what their doctor gave them as sleeping pill. They learn, that they are using a MKULTRA brain wash drug from the arsenal of the CIA and the KGB, also used to torture russian prisoners. They learn that they use the favorite of nepalese junkies. They learn, that the drug causes brain rot, cancer and testicular shrinkage. The whole benzodiazepine class has been covered by some editors with an aggregation of loosely associated, tangential and anecdotal references, frequently the reference doesn't say what the editor claims. This is vandalism. The viewpoint centers on abuse and obscure animal experiments proving horrible dangers. So I gave it a POV marker. Please don't revert this again without discussion. These pages have already been vandalized to the point of uselessness. Look at the discussion: "Clutter", and "Encyclopedia". This is not a junkie forum or anti-drug forum either, so I propose to remove the overwhelming presence of related materials and discussions from these encyclopedic entries. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

hi
Hi Jossie, this guy keeps harrassing me. More information is on the temazepam talk page and the chlordiazepoxide talk page. This is getting out of control and has been going on for days. Please help. The anon user just undid your latest revert on the temazepam article.--Literaturegeek (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitrazepam needs locking
Hi Jossie, Me again, sorry. Can you lock nitrazepam editing please. The guy is reverting your edits on the nitrazepam page and please read the latest additions to the temazepam talk page. It might be an idea to semi protect all benzodiazepine articles on wiki. This guy is just going beserk on multiple benzo articles. I think that he is mentally ill, seriously. He is driving me crazy.--Literaturegeek (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help with this lunatic who is constantly harassing me!!! Read nitrazepam talk page and recent additions to the temazepam talk page, please. I am being driven mad. You will see what I mean.--Literaturegeek (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on admin fvasconcellos talk page. You need to lock ALL benzo web pages from this anon user or ban him. He will not stop, I am telling ya lol. Cheers. I am truely sorry to keep bothering you.--Literaturegeek (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done what I could to stop this from escalating further. If the user persists place a notice at WP:AN/I. You can also take a break for a few days, it really helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Thanks for the protection, jossi; I was off-wiki for a few hours, and a weird vandal edit to my Talk page yesterday had me missing one of the messages left by Literaturegeek. I'm concerned that this may spill onto one or more of several articles involved in this minor debacle, however. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's help this newbie come to terms with the wiki way... He may learn to contribute constructively. So I have protected these pages so that he/she does not harm himself... If he does not learn, well, you know the drill... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you can help him to learn the wiki way? Have you read the things he has been typing? See this edit for one example. . I can give more.--Literaturegeek (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Ouch). Seems that this person needs the kind of help we cannot give in WP. Be gentle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you guys not spot a wind-up? Given in response to the personal attack "have you ever considered maybe chronic benzodiazepines sedative hypnotics might, just might be having an adverse effect on your mind and your judgement" from Literaturegeek, it seems apt and rather restrained. Literaturegeek also needs to learn the Wiki way, both in terms of WP:NPA (unrelenting vitriol -- taking the removing of his edits very badly) and how to source and present medical facts. As with many disputes, neither party is completely pure or evil. Much of what the IP is challenging and removing should be challenged (though I accept its removal could be handled better and after discussion). Don't assume that text sourced to a journal is evidence that (a) the source justifies the text and (b) that the editor has read the article. Some of those articles are in Japanese! Colin°Talk 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adamson article
Thanks for protecting the page. The other user has not responded to messages on his talk page or discussion on the article page itself. Hopefully this gets his attention. (reply anywhere) Rmcsamson (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam article
He is starting the fight back up on the temazepam talk page. I can only hold my temper for so long as I see my reputation and character as an established editor further hammered into the ground by this person. Just letting you know. We were meant to be "cooling it" as requested but he won't let it go.--Literaturegeek (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this post above of mine? Just wondering if you got this one or not because I sent you two messages at once.--Literaturegeek (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Shpakovich
Can you look here? It says User:Shpakovich and User:M.V.E.i. are the same. Bayoumi (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk subpages
Why did you create Talk:Prem Rawat/Heller comment and Talk:Prem Rawat/Finch, and why do they still exist? PROD tags aren't supposed to be placed on talk pages, but unless there's a reason to keep these pages I'm going to delete them, and any others like them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said I don't recall the circumstances for the creation of these sub pages (it was a quite a while ago), delete them, or better (as you are actively editing the article), place a request for all these to be deleted at WP:MFD. I'll support the deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't oppose the edit then I'll just delete them, as you were the only editor. I didn't see your previous comment, wherever that was. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (My comment was made in one of the arbcom pages, but you may have missed it.) Delete them. Not an issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To stay within process, let me blank them first, so that these can be deleted as per CSD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason Calacanis page protection
I see that you protected this page at the same time that I removed my request. I do think that the page needs some work, but I'm not sure that my request wasn't premature. The IP's false edit summaries probably pushed me to request protection when it probably wasn't needed. I have no problem with the protection, and I'm guessing that the article needs some serious cleanup, but I wanted to make sure you saw that I withdrew my request. I won't edit war over any sourced information, so feel free to unprotect if you feel there may be any benefit to leaving the article open to IP edits. --Onorem♠Dil 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Just noticed it was full, not semi-protected. That works for me. I just didn't want it to look like I was trying to gain an advantage by requesting protection. --Onorem♠Dil 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * np. If you are ready to resume editing before the protection expires, make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Jossi, query for you here. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling anon user
Jossi, the anon user is still filling up the temazepam talk page with unconstructive trolling rants. Now the user thegoodson has also been dragged into it. Nothing is getting any better. This trolling anon user is continuing making unconstructive arguments and just goes on and on and on and on and bloody on ya know. It is not fair the admins are not doing their job following the anon's posts and edits sufficiently so you mistakenly think that it is just a "dispute" and don't realise that it is a serious troll. When is an admin finally going to actually take the time to follow the postings of this troll and realise that it is a troll and they are causing major drama and harm to benzo articles. This is a serious hardcore troll. Please please do something to stop this anon user. I have been a peaceful heavy contributer to wikipedia for well over a year now without any problems. Please do something!!! You cannot reason with this troll, they are not playing with the full deck of cards!!! I want action now, please!--Literaturegeek (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please report the disruption at WP:AN/I, as it may need admin consensus to enforce some kind of longer term block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion
Shpakovich has been evading his 24 hour block by editing from an IP, 79.177.110.13 and replacing the IP sig with his registered user sig. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP for 48 hrs, and extended his block to 48 hrs. In the future, please place a notice at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, I just wasn't sure if that was the right place to go with it and thought I'd come here since you issued the first block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your 3rr warning of me was seriously flawed in judgement
I only did two reverts and one wouldn't be considered a revert by anyone using some common sense. The first revert was when a guy deleted my section claiming it wasn't sourced - it was obviously sourced so I said so and restored my text.

20:27, 5 April 2008 Thegoodlocust (Talk | contribs) (125,476 bytes) (It was sourced - try reading the source next time instead of just undoing) (undo)

This is the "2nd" revert, was in an entirely different section, and I'd already started a talk section about why I removed the section yesterday, the person who deleted it seems to be following me and undoing my edits. However, he, nor anybody commented on my reasons for its removal, but he instead decided to undo my deletion, which I redid since it is in clear violation of WP: PSTS.

22:47, 5 April 2008 Thegoodlocust (Talk | contribs) (125,648 bytes) (→Political positions: That entire section is a clear violation of WP: PSTS and I opened a discussion on it if someone had a valid disagreement) (undo)

I expect you do retract your 3rr warning from me unless there is something I missed. Even still, you should show better judgement since the first "revert" shouldn't even count. I wonder if you are watching the people stalking me for reverts.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it and just telling me to read something is a cop out. Someone deleted something I wrote because it "wasn't sourced" - it was so I reinserted what I'd written since it was indeed already well-sourced (and not by me). That is not a revert. The second time I redeleted a section that violated wikipedia policy AND I had started a discussion on the topic and why I deleted it many hours previously. The person who restored the text decided not to engage in discussion but to merely undo what I'd done. He is the 3rr violation - not me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted twice, and they were seperate things. I discussed everything. Even that grzz guy, who hates my guts, said only one person was edit warring (not me) - you didn't give 3rr's to the pro-Obama people I notice - that's the real bottom line. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your blocking factual statement about wrights link with farrakhan are akin to white wash
its simply a fact that should be on this page considering his 20 year history with this man. it is highly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womulee (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

/* Regarding Temazepam */
I would like to request that the temazepam be protected for at 10 days. As a pharmacologist, I have extensive knowledge on the subject of drugs. The temazepam is scientifically referenced and cited. However, an Anon user is having issues with it simply because he/she believes that old people on the sleep aid will have a stroke upon reading it. That is ridiculous. TheGoodSon 08:12, 06 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Chlordiazepoxide page resolved
So, "Insane Anon troll" likes the page much better now. 70.137.138.242 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Die4Dixie
Could you take a look at these:, , , ,. He keeps claiming some BS reason, that he's the victim of persecution and whatnot.  Grsz  11  03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The user is now blocked for 24hrs for personal attacks. If there is further disruption of that kind, you can make a report at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another request
Could you check User:CarlosRodriguez's contributions. He has continuously made POV edits at Jeremiah Wright that he has been warned against, and yet fails to concede. ,, , , , ,. Thanks,  Grsz  11  16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another, that put him at 3 in 24 hours.  Grsz  11  16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
I think you were far too hasty in closing this debate, and your given reasons for doing so hint that you hadn't actually familiarised yourself with the substance of the dispute. The major bone of contention were lack of civility or reasoned debate, which grew out of a content dispute. The content dispute is being dealt with on at least one other talk page; this discussion was mainly over the two editor's behaviour toward one another. I feel that it would have been far more productive to have a neutral admin's contribution, rather than simply cauterising the discussion which, while bloody, was starting to get somewhere on at least one side.  Pyrop e  16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My assessment for closing was that there was nothing to be gained from continuing that discussion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you disagree with my closing, you are welcome to ask another admin to re-open it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the users involved has been cautioned. Any further harassment or personal attacks, will result in blocks. You can place a notice at WP:AN/I if this recurs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Pyrope and Jossi.
 * Okay, so I can be a bit condescending. You are both relatively calm folk. Tell me how I can handle these situations better. I really don't want to encourage bad, trollish or simply hurt-feelins' behavior from others, but I want to get my point across. I am gathering from Pyrope's comments that less is always more. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, was I correct in noting (from the RfCU) that Kapowow is in fact the one operating the anon IPs? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify?
One edit involved (presumably) living people, the other involved a defunct organization. That's the difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The information about the presumably living people was not contentious, was it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was challenged by you, so I guess it was contentious. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor guess, Will. In any case, no need to go further on this. I was just curious for what I saw as a discrepancy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you challenge the information if it wasn't contentious? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You challenged it, by deleting it. I challenged you for the unnecessary deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of your challenge: "provide a source... or delete it." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

International Republican Institute
Just a heads up that your reversion of vandalism to International Republican Institute by Gleangrain were reverted by the user. I've reverted them again, although the user has reverted two edits so far and may do so again. The pattern of reverts strongly matches edits done in the past from an IRI IP address so maybe it would be worth requesting to see if Gelangrain is editing from the IRI? Cheers Saganaki- (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Saganaki. The article is now semi-protected, so this will alleviate the problem for now. If disruption persists, please post a note at [WP:ANI]]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Block [66.240.30.54
Hi. I noticed that a while back you blocked the vandal that is on the IP address. He had been blocked for 6 months starting on September 28, but now he's back again and just doing more of the same - ruining Wikipedia as much as he can. Could you please block that IP address for one full year? I, and the rest of the this website, would greatly appreciate it. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your last warn
You had just warned me (I was not logged in) for making a nonconstructive edit on the Florensia page. However, I merely removed the text that was along the line of "being edited", as well as unsourced text. The article had way too much redundant information (as it was along the lines of a strategy guide, rather than a wikipedia page). On an unrelated note, I see you are and experienced user and I was wondering what tag I would insert on a copyrighted section on said article and where I would find it. I would prefer a response on my own talk page, thanks. ~ Ambrosia-  talk 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Material that is obvious copyvio, just delete at sight, adding the URL of the site from which the material was copied in the edit summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent
I posted a question for you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that, Will. And I have no intention to respond to such type of questioning which is unwarranted given that the case is not yet closed. Read the proposed decision and let the case run its course. If you want, you can ask that question to the ArbCom, as it relates to your perception that if I resumed editing it "would change the dynamic of the editing process, and would make the COI concerns an issue again." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you keep refusing to answer questions about article content and about your editing. It's hard to have a conversation when questions are either met with silence or with indignation. Let's try to all work together to find consensus and to follow the best practices. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding questions about my editing, you may want to check your questions, Will. As per article questions, I think I have responded to all of them. If I have missed any, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked you if it's true that you've written that you may start editing the Prem Rawat articles again, and for reasons that escape me you've said you won't answer the question until the completion of the arbitration. Regarding article content, you told me to stop alerting you to questions because you watch the pages, but you don't appear to notice the questions. I've even given the edit summary "question for Jossi" twice, but still no response. Here's a separate question that's also unanswered. If you want to keeps a "hands-ff" or "arms-length" distance from the Prem Rawat talk pages then I'd understand and support that decision. But if you're going to keep highly involved in editing the topic it'd help if you could respond to direct questions about content decisions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the questions where answered by others, some are quite recent, and some I may have missed. I will pay closer attention. Note that it has been hard work to keep up with the arbCom case, and with the activity at the DLM article, about which editors ask me to produce a draft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I ask a general question I don't label it "question for Jossi". Your responses would stil be apreciated. And, again, did you say you may return to editing the Prem Rawat articles? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is always an option, Will, as WP:COI does not rule such possibility. Having said that, I am aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner in these articles, as I have done so far. Article probation should provide all the tools needed to assure an orderly debate and resumption on editing without disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be an option except that you've said you won't do so. If you intend to go back to editing despite the objections of many involved editors and despite your commitment then I'm not aware of any policies to prevent you. However the Arbcom can decide to stop you, and it's only fair to let them you that you are considering going back to editing. Letting them know may, as you've put it, prevent unnecessary visits to WP:AE. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are jumping the gun, Will. Let the case run its course. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that when people make comments despite making your own comments to the ArbCom. I don't understand why you don't think your plans for editing the article are not relevant to the case at hand. Since you won't confirm that you aren't planning to edit again I assume that you are, in fact, planning to do so. II think that would be a big mistake and would result in more disruption to the articles. It would harm not only you, but Wikipedia's reputation. I hope that you put the project's needs first when you're editing here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making too many assumptions, Will, and I would appreciate it if you stop.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please correct my mistaken assumptions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you are exceeding the limits of propriety with your persistent questioning. By now you should have gotten the clue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have mail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, I will be taking a break to do my dues to Uncle Sam during the weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nehru
You were incorrect to think that one of the reverts was a rvv. It was not blatant vandalism, which is required to legitimately break the 3rr. I have responded on the Nehru talk page.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Invisible Barnstar
You make many unseen and significant contributions to this project and in recognition ... have an Invisible Barnstar. Cheers ;) --Hu12 (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence §  t / e  18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, Lawrence. As I said I will support next time, as I am sure you will take the feedback seriously. Happy editing till then! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Christian Terrorist" reference on Joe Scarborough page
This is a correct description of the person mentioned here. See the definition for "Christian Terrorist" - it fits a person who is convicted of killing an aborion doctor. I feel my edit should stand. Please defend you revert of my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you kindly respond to this issue. I have re-inserted the term "christian terrorist" in this article several times as it has disappeared several times, and yet you are the first one to ever refer to it as vandalism - probably due to the fact that it is NOT vandalism - or did you bother to read the entry for Christian terrorist to see if the term applies.  Enjoy your Wiki power - no doubt it is very important to you. I love Wikipedia and have made many corrections and constructive edits in the past.  Therefore I do not wish to be blocked, and you evidently have that power.  I only wish you would actually read and think about what you call vandalism; rather than just seeing a change that you do not understand, and calling it vandalism.  "With great power comes great responsibility."  ps...Please see my talk page.  A fellow editor has conceded that my edit was not vandalism.  He suggested I pursue the issue with you -  thank you.  72.92.4.157 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see talk page on Joe Scarborough article. I heard from another admin and user and a conversation is developing.  Feel free to comment as you were the original reverter/deleter of this reference.  I'd like to know if the current discussion has changed your mind.  Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note my new unsername. Kek15 (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuđman
Hi

May I know your reason for voting "Support" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franjo_Tu%C4%91man#Requested_move

Why do you oppose usage of Croatian diacritics if there is widespread usage of Spanish ones?

As I have proven here:

    [] WP:EU is not only criteria.

Regards!

--Anto (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi i'm Will Hackett Why is there a page on me being someone else... I would not like to have a page on this system under my name!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.68.204 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be more than one person with a name.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection
Could you please unprotect Template:European Americans? User:Koalorka only has original research and baseless statements to make about Turkey "not being European", whereas the general consensus of Turkey is that it is both European and Asian. I'm sick and tired of "debating" with him and I want to put Turkish American back on to the template. If you won't unprotect the template, could you, as an admin, at least add the article to the template, please? Onur (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will respond in the template talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No! This is so stupid! User:Koalorka keeps on making original research and baseless assertions about Eastern Thrace being a "colonial outpost" whilst going against the consensus that Turkey is both a European and an Asian country. This debate has gone on far too long enough, and I'm sick and tired of debating this with user. Onur (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Passover
Dear Jossi: I hope you have (had?) a joyous and peaceful Passover. Finell (Talk) 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Best wishes on this special day. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium
Jossi, While I realize that your actions on depleted uranium were done in good faith, if you look at the checkuser for loss is more (the 10th one) you will see that all the edits made on depleted uranium, which you reverted back to were made by James Salsman's many sockpuppets. 75.207.209.46 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, there is more recent DU-related edit warring at Gulf War syndrome. Please see. 76.235.156.165 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Problematic editing
There's currently an ArbCom case with 13 parties. Evidence about the editing behavior of all 13 has been submitted to the arbitrators. I specifically mentioned the behavior of PatW and asked the ArbCom to do something about it. Yet they appear to be uninterested in taking action against him. Perhaps they don't feel his editing is a problem. I find that hard to believe but they seem uninterested in a number of editing problems so it's par for the course. I guess we just have to accept that PatW has a rambling way of expressing himself on talk pages. I'll drop him a note to remind him of the value of terseness. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced barnstar?
Was there a reason for posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards? Maybe it was intended for a user talk page? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AN thread
Jossi, a general comment without prejudice regarding the particular editor under current discussion: although I have no opinion about whether to continue or end that particular indefinite block, I do have an opinion about the idea that participation in an arbitration case creates some sort of shield against blocking. That's a highly gameable proposition, and it would apply to a venue that is already overpopulated by people who habitually game as many standards as possible. I've seen that kind of exploitation tried before and it's unsettling to see a proposition that would give it clout. If we aren't careful that could lead to a situation where editors shy away from arbitration because they fear their identities would be outed with impunity. Recent events have already raised serious doubts about confidentiality and arbitration; let's not add to those worries. Again, I mean this in terms of general principles and not with regard to how to proceed further regarding tonight's episode: arbitration ought not to have a bearing on how to enforce the Foundation's privacy policy. Durova Charge! 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, Durova. But blocks are not punitive. So, if the user commits not to do that again, I see no reason why to keep him/her indef blocked. I leave that to the blocking admin to decide. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how you frame the discussion of punitive/preventative; we may be approaching this from different paradigms. In a follow-up to the ANI thread I've discussed this in more depth with specific examples.  Might be worth a look, because I'm really not sure what's the best solution to this issue.  Durova Charge! 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Die4Dixie
You recently blocked me for 24 hours, of which I remained unaware for a while as I had stepped back from the project. I do not wish to name the editor in question, but if you could find it in yourself to ask him if he would be willing to disengage, I would appreciate it. You can see my contributions, and it will become immediately clear to whom I refer. I have not returned to his talkpage to see if he is agreeable to my reasonable request. I am not asking for an official action as at this point it would not be warranted. Sorry to bother you before the Passover, but I see that you are actively here. Thank you for any consideration.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN again
Jossi, since you closed the Arbitration enforcement discussion, I just wanted to inform you that another discussion appeared at WP:AN within 24 hours. I don't what specific conduct you warned him about or what you knew but I think your opinion would be very helpful. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A request for clarification from the ArbCom has been filed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

James V. Downton AfD
Per our discussion on the talk page, I've nominated the article for deletion. Articles for deletion/James V. Downton. Nothing personal, but it's just a short bibliography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly move... If all you wanted was to redirect James V. Downton to his book, I would have not oppose. AfD is not for redirects or merges, but for deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's "silly" to nominate perma-stub bios of non-notable professors for deletion. You're welcome to propose a merger if you want- so far no one has. Your position in this case appears to be the opposite of that regarding the TPRF article, which I would like to merge but which you say needs to be sent to AfD. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirecting does not need an AfD. You could have done it and avoid the silliness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to prose a redirect then feel free. So far no one has. I take it from your comment that you won't object if I am bold and redirect/merge TPRF? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop playing more silly games with me, Will. And try and keep discussions about different articles separately, if you just can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a game, at least not to me. You appear to be suggesting that I should have acted one way with one article but should act differently in the case of another article. I'm asking for clarification of what seems like an inconsistency in your admonishments to me. In one case you say I shouldn't have had an AfD and should have boldly merged, while in the other case you imply that I should not be bold and should launch an AfD. What's the difference?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, are you being serious? Here we have an article James V. Downton. You first prod'ed it. Then you AfD it. If you had asked for a merge (as you suggest in your AfD nomination), I would not have opposed it. The TPRF article is being discussed in several pages by multiple editors. That is the difference. I hate to say this, but it seems that you have a real problem with contextualizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I suggested merging the Downton article to the book article. In fact I only mentioned that there is an article to with it could be redirected if the discussion favored that. My suggestion, in bold letters, is to delete the article. I don't understand why you say you don't oppose a merger or redirect, yet are putting so much energy into preserving a stub. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because an AfD is about deleting an article, and I am opposed to the deletion. I have corrected my !vote, to ask for a keep, or keep and merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
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) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tit for tat?
No... though it did look coincidental, didn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)