User talk:Jossi/Archives/2006 September

Thank You
Thanks for upholding Wiki's NPOV status on your recent posts at Talk:Israel You seem to be the only person on the page who is not editing based on personal agenda, and actually interested in meaningful discussion that brings the article forward. If you have a chance can you take a look at Human_rights_in_Israel When I "created" the article stub, I didn't expect it to turn in to a heated revert-war that it has. Your insight would be most appreciated.--Oiboy77 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Martyn article
May I ask what in the article fails to meet Wikipedia standards as it would help me modify it, also I was deleting that section because I was concerned that it was the section which is threatning it with deletion. Charlotte Martyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Master Of All Things (talk • contribs)


 * I have placed some pointers in your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself on how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Jossi, I saw you blocked, then unblocked Peyna after seeing the reason he was reverting. It would be very helpful if you could semi-protect Martin Luther. The banner user, User:Ptmccain, is very troublesome, and has engaged in serious personal attacks, has posted what he thinks are the personal details of two users, has been blocked several times for 3RR on this page, and when he was blocked indefinitely, he promised to be back with sockpuppets and AOL IPs, which appears to be what's happening. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody beat me to it... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He has fully protected it, which means none of the other editors will be able to edit because of Ptmccain. It's better than no protection, and I don't particulary care myself, but I suspect some of the other editors will object. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have sprotected. Admin must have wanted to sprotect, as the article was listed on Protected_page. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Jossi. Would you mind keeping an eye on the talk page too? The same banned user has just turned up there to revert the archiving. If it continues, would you consider sprotecting that, too? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

List of cults
Hello, someone pointed out the List of cults redirects to List of groups referred to as cults. I was going to list it at RfD but saw it has been through RfD at least twice before, the last time initiated by you about 5 months ago. Nobody else agreed. From discussion of both RfDs it appears that the redirect was viewed as helpful rather than POV. I wonder about that. In other (unrelated) situations people have drawn meaning from the existence of certain redirects. I would expect the search engine would return the appropriate page as one of the top results even without the redirect. If it doesn't, the search engine should be fixed. Do you think this should have another go at RfD sometime? Gimmetrow 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Roy Masters
Your changes were reverted by User 66.81.149.170 (apparently the same vandal). I don't know how bans work, but this guy has been very unproductive, and a general pain for me (at least). He can't even bother to get an account, but he checks on the article about once a day or more and posts some more bile. ---Bennie Noakes 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked for personal attacks and disruption. I have also semi-protected the article so that anon sockpuppets cannot disrupt and enter material that it is unsourced as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Copyvio
I know this is a bit old, but I just came across a copyvio you merged into an article from this French Bread website.--Crossmr 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, my friend, delete... I just merged from an existing article and redirected...≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 02:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * already done. unfortunately it came from an AOL ip originally, so not much to be done with it otherwise. I left a note on the talk page of the article.--Crossmr 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnnyBGood
What moves did he make? He hasn't edited that page. I might have, but it would have been stub tagging. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Special:Log&user=JohnnyBGood ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those moves were before the ArbCom case closed. (July 5, and last highway move was June 13). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realized my mistake and corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Black People
Hi, I am the one that requested a lock on that page. I am hoping you can view my contribution 09:45, 3 August 2006 prior to the first revision by EditingOprah/67.49.221.43 which precipitated the edit war. As you can see in the talk page, NO responses regarding this issue were raised, only continual reverts. Is it possible to restore the article to it's last state at this point until the issue is resolved? Please respond on the top of my talk page if possible. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is ONE user on the Black People page that is causing all of this, His name is EditingOprah. Why must the entire article be locked for his sake? He has a history of contentious and irresponsible behavior in that article. Will you please respond? --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi I reverted the article back to a stable version that had lasted for 6 months. That is the version you correctly protected. Zaph is tryng to push an extremely fring point of view that any dark skinned person is black. He completely misunderstands the mainstream/scientific/census use of the term. The article is now in mediation so please do not give in to Zaph's requests for you to unprotect it. You made the correct decision.--Editingoprah 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754
Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing as I was blocked for on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please place a notice at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of defense at WP:AE and I didn't even have to write most of it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. --SPUI (T - C) 23:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk
I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Article
Hi. I was looking through the articles and i noticed that the Zac Efron one was semi-protected, but at the top it said edit instead of view-source and ips were still being able to edit it despite the semi-protected tag. I left a message about it on the talk page but wasn't sure if the administrators would see it so I left a message here.--74.133.52.253 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Psychohistorian/71.74.209.82
I would suggest that this individual is now at a point of open vandalism and should be blocked. His editing tonight of the Anchor baby page clearly is vandalism. He can’t win the argument, so he is vandalizing the page to correspond to his view. Thanks Brimba 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can add your voice at WP:ANI#User_talk:71.74.209.82.


 * Jossi, do you agree to mediation regarding what I consider to be your continued abuse of administration priveleges? If not, I will elevate the issue beyond that.Psychohistorian 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not abusing any privilieges. Feel free to post your complaint at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am seeking a formal complaint. Again, do you agree to arbitration?Psychohistorian 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbitration is the last step in WP:DR. We have placed an RfC, so hopefully other editors will come to help. After that: there is Informal mediation, Discuss with third parties, Conduct a survey, Mediation, Requesting an advocate. Disengage for a while, and Last resort: Arbitration. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me out?
Jossi ~

I am an admin and also a member of the Wikimedia Legal Department {IAAL} so I don't like to get involved in disputes in projects but a newbie contacted me about being blocked. I looked on the WP:AN/3RR and I did not see any report of this violation. I noted that you were editing the page yourself (by doing reverts) and in this case it is appears to me according to the policy not to be proper to unilaterially block the individual in question yourself but to report it on the Admin's noticeboard and ask another admin to look into it. From WP:AN/3RR -


 * Administrator involvement


 * Except in cases of vandalism, if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken.

I think once you are involved in removing content from a page (i.e. the vanity link in question) you are involved in a "content dispute" no? Let me know if I am wrong by citing the relevant policy page because some of these policies get changed and I have been a Wikipedian since early 2003 and don't always keep up with all the policy changes on EN, but from what I remember once an administrator gets involved doing any kind of edit on a page they should not be doing the blocking or they are subject to blocking themselves. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks.

Alex756 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you refer to ? If that is the case, I would suggest you review this editor's edits that consist mostly of the addition of her personal website to numerous articles. She has been warned several times for this. FYI, I edited the Caligraphy article in the past (my last edit was the removal of a copyvio image on June 19, and previously on September 2005), but I am not engaged in actively editing that article. The article is in my watchlist, though. I do not see this to be a content dispute, rather, of spam vandalism and as such well within my role to perform a block. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 04:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you admit editing the article and blocked the user anyway. You have not given me any reason why this person is a vandal because if you look back you see that she made edits
 * that have not been reverted by you or anyone else. Remember don't bite the newbies. She contacted me and I don't think she is a vandal, she is a respected New Zealand calligrapher that just does not understand the rules of Wikipedia, she saw some other commercial links when she first clicked on that page and thought it was ok to add her own link. I am afraid you might have scared her away from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. For what it is worth, I would not have participated in such a block I would have found another administrator to deal with it because it appears that I am attacking someone who is making a contribution to a page of which I am a joint author, it smacks of an edit war, even the appearance of impropriety is wrong.  That is how I would have handled it anyway. I think if another administrator had contacted her and tried to get her to understand Wikipedia policy she would have understood. She certainly understood it after I explained it to her via email and she accepted my entry of a link to the New Zealand Calligraphers Society as a compromise.


 * I think we have to be careful not to scare potentially valuable contributors away with our heavy-handed actions as administrators. I know it is not always easy trying to figure out who is a vandal and in the most obvious cases I would agree with trying to find someone to block a vandal on a page I was working on right away, but really, blocking someone for putting a link to a website that demostrates a particular type of artwork skill, is hardly hard core pornography type link spam, no?  Alex756 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but note that this was explained to her several times. I disagree with your asessment that "I was editing the article" I was not. The article is in my watchlist, I saw a link being repeatedly added to the article, deleted it, informed the user of the reason as per WP:AUTO and warned her about the WP:3RR policy. As an editor I take pride in welcoming users (both anon and registered, see my contribs) and as an admin, I always warn users when I see edits that are incompatible with policy. I have addressed these issues with her via email as well as in her user page. As for the compromise that you have negotiated, note that the link is incompatible with WP:EL. Otherwise, we will have to list the caligrapher's associations of other countries as well, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still my opinion that you were editing the article. The fact is you were changing the content of the article in the past, you are a coauthor of the article. This is what we mean when we say that someone is "editing" an article; you disputed her right to add the link, the link is content, this then becomes a content dispute. You also edited the article previously, it was not just in your watch list. See the following:, , , . I am not going to respond to your comment about the links, because that is not the issue here, and you are taking the focus off the problem, which is that it is my opinion that you blocked her in violation of the policy, you have a history of making edits to this article since last year; you are involved in the article and have not convinced me otherwise. If you have a problem with that link that I placed on that page you should be placing such discussion on the article talk page not as a counterattack against me in discussing your behavior. I have not engaged in any behavior as an administrator that can be called into question. Also, I don't think that is a fair way to discuss my opinion that you have participated in writing/editing of the article prior to blocking someone for adding content with which you did not agree with -- that is the issue here. I do not dispute that I am or have contributed to the article or that my contributions are subject to being mercifully edited. The point is that I have not used my power as an administrator to control content that I became involved with in some manner. I think that even deleting links is changing content but certainly rewriting and reorganizing articles does effect the content of the article in significant ways, even if no new content is added by the editor, the editor is "writing" the article. So the situation then becomes a content dispute, not a purely administrative function which should be impartial. I believe that an important principle of WP is that content disputes and the administration of WP must be kept separate, sort of like academic freedom in universities, otherwise we might be creating a tyranny of administrators, who appear to be authorities over content and who act with unfettered discretion over any content that they wish to remove without discussing it first on the talk page and allowing the editor in question to make the decision themselves because they have been properly persuaded by reason and not by force. Alex756 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Alex, but I think that you are making a big deal of this and forwarding undeserving criticism. The diffs you show are a deletion of an image that was deleted for copyvio, and the others were edits made by me almost year ago. Yes, I was editing the article in the past but my intervention in this case cannot be taken as a content dispute, unless you interpret policy in a very narrow way and without the proper context. The fact is that this user was adding her personal website to numerous articles, some of which are not even remotely related to calligraphy, such as
 * Interactive whiteboard
 * Animal glue
 * Gesso
 * ... and into another ten or more articles (see contribs). That was in my view, an attempt to spam Wikipedia with a commercial link. The user was was warned for the same issue by four editors and admins before me. I then warned about violation of 3RR, as it was clear hat the user was not accepting the warnings made, and finally blocked for 24 hrs. Nevertheless, I have discussed this with the user, we have put all this behind us, and now we have engaged in a very constructive conversation about collaborating on related articles in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New problem at Ayn Rand
Over at Ayn Rand, some new guy is editing based on POV and won't quit it. He has tried to justify his edits on the talk page, but has given nothing but POV, strawmen fallacies, and personal attacks to back it up. -- LGagnon 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I got drawn into that duspute a while back, and I am not interested in engaging again. Too toxic... Maybe ask some fresh admin to give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Immigration
I encourage you to stick around. A few good editors can make all of the difference. The problem is the just with an editor or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the encouragement, but I am taking a break from that guy. Too toxic. I may visit that article in a few weeks. Hope that other editors show up there and take some of the work on themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got home, and saw your message. I have come to the same conclusion as you, its no longer worth the fight on those two pages. I am sorry to say that as far as I can tell the guys from Stormfront.org now control those pages. Without any enforcement of the rules, or blocking taking place, there is nothing to keep them from doing whatever they desire. It’s really a black mark upon Wikipedia.

However, not all is lost. Cheer up as fortunately they can’t see the forest from the trees, and by the time they figure that out they will have missed their opportunity. Pinheads that have no faith in democracy or allegiance to the Constitution tend to be easily suckered.

Or in other words there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Brimba 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Judith Butler
Greetings. I'm hoping that an Admin can take a look here to help resolve a problem with a user intent on bypassing consensus and discussion. Thanks!--Anthony Krupp 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

YGS page
Hi Jossi,

Last time we spoke you had protected the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page, due to unrelenting editorial conflict. Since then, the "protect" was undermined because someone created an alternate page and had it "moved" onto the existing protected page. I had basically given up monitoring the page months ago because it appeared to be in a state of equilibrium and without inflammatory POV information, even though it was in a severely stripped down format. However, I have taken a recent look and found it to be in bad shape. I was wondering if you could help? Perhaps this page needs to be reverted to the version which you protected and reprotected. Thanks in advance for your help. Hamsacharya dan 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is not so much activity. Be bold and fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but these two editors Hanuman Das and Terminator III are just waiting to get into an editing war, especially with me, and I'm not going to indulge that behavior anymore... I will fix it once, but if either of them comes in and starts reverting things, then I'm not sure what to do - I will need help to fix things, and I don't want to waste 6 hours a day trying to negotiate and placate (see the 4 archives over a 3 month period in the YGS talk pages). It's a little too much like the Israel/Hezbollah conflict in there... I'm somewhat convinced that } is the same as who was blocked indefinitely for making threats and fanatical editing. Hanuman Das has a history of edit warring with me and has engaged in sockpuppeting to get his way. So, if I fix it once and a conflict breaks out, will you help to bring it to a speedy resolution? Please????? Hamsacharya dan 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Editing articles, arbCom case
Your concerns are quite valid, and I do think that we have to be careful about the rules in this case. However, I think the important term here is inherent bias. There are certain cases where bias is inherent, and this does place a greater burden on the editor to avoid real and perceived violations of NPOV. Acknowledging and dealing with this is important. Your proposed "strong involvement" test is, to my mind, too broad as it could affect too many good editors. Almost all academics could be considered to have a "strong involvement" with their subject matter, for instance. - SimonP 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Earl Weaver Baseball
Let me know how the Earl Weaver Baseball article is. JAF1970 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi!; Changed user name?
Dear Jossi:

I just noticed your recent edits on an old friend, Golden ratio. I also noticed that you changed your user name. I'm curious why.

——Finell (Talk) 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was being harassed... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, literally. I did notice that your User page has a counter for the number of times that it has been vandalized. Has the user name change helped? By the way, I can't see why, but the t in your signature does not seem to link to your Talk page (at least, not for me). Be well!! Finell (Talk)18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "t" does not work because you are in the talk poage itself (!). Want to give me a hand with Golden section? I want to make the article really great so that it can be a FA. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please pardon my very slow reply. I have been unusually busy with work and other commitments. I am very interested in the Golden ratio article (Golden section is just a redirect), and agree that it has FA potential. I believe that its overall organization has suffered from an accumulation of edits and added material, both good and bad, but with some of the contributions redundant or in the wrong section. I did contribute a few small copy edits to the article's lead on 14 August 2006. However, because of the same work and other pressures, I am not sure when I can devote substantial time to the article. I'll see what I can do over the next 2-3 weeks. Meanwhile, may I offer two observations, which I cannot execute myself (I don't know enough about graphics, but that is your specialty): (1) Some of the graphics in the article and the way text flows (or doesn't) around them could be improved (but I don't know how to do it). (2) There is a graphic of an upper case (capital) Phi, which may be misleading; I believe that a lower case phi is normally used to denote the golden ratio. There is discussion in some of the cited Web pages about upper versus lower case, with at least one stating that upper case Phi denotes the complement (or reciprocal) of the golden ratio.


 * As for my mis-observation about the "t" in your signature, I really should know better by now; I've even seen that appearance of page self-references before. Finell (Talk) 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Petros471 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested
I think you have illustrated the point i was trying to make in my reply- by compleatly ignoring it. IT seems wierd to me, if you were indeed "nurturing" newbies to not reply- especailly since some of my concern was with the difficulty of knowing were and how to reply! ( heres some of what i wrote.: ...welcome page .. its a wee bit imposing- I am not sure where to reply to you either- your page- where in your huge page, my page (i dont think your welcome splash covers this. I get a feeling it varies- you answer here?? ... .. As for my signature, i tried for tilds- both ```` and (````) as stated in some "help" pages. Neither worked. ANd no help page said there was a "4 tild button" anywhere or use the tild button. I didnt see it. looking farward to a response. Cilstr  08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a joke...
Knock, knock... (your turn) --Herschel Werdbaum 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No way I will waste my time. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A new guideline
I would value your input on a topic I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Specifically, I have frequently encountered a set of issues on biographies of academics that are somewhat narrower and more specific than for generic "biographies of living persons". I am thinking that it might be time to propose a guideline about this, or maybe just an essay on the topic. But before I try to float that, I'm interested in what you think. LotLE × talk 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed discussing it on talk
I am indeed discussing on the talk page, as per BOLD revert discuss. I'd also like to discuss with you personally, as per that procedure. Why do you think "No original research" must be made non-negotiable?

As you might gather, I'm very worried about this wording conflicting with the principle of consensus. I'm well aware of the fact that the no original research guideline is very very important, mind you, but I'd prefer not take it to the point of stomping on everything else. :-) Kim Bruning 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Core policies of Wikipedia cannot be overriden by consensus. All three core policies work together, as per Jimbo's comment ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how I worried people would interpret it.
 * Kim Bruning 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry
I just unsprotected this. I saw that you protected it on May 7, a really very long time ago! Please do remember to revisit and release your protections as you go. Thanks, Splash - tk 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Alienus
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads' up. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I haven't gone through the evidence of the case yet (I still have one to look at before this), but you do make some very good points. On the other hand, I can see the points on the other side as well. I'm going to think about this carefully, with your arguments in mind. Thanks again! Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an alternative on the case; please let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jay. That proposed decision addresses the concerns raised and sets the correct tone. Thank you. 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:NBGPWS.
I notice that you posted a warning regarding personal attacks on User:NBGPWS' talk page. I appreciate that greatly and wonder if you might, however, consider blocking him for at least a period of time from editing the Protest Warrior talk page. He has requested the mediation cabal take a look regarding edits to the actual article, which I more than welcome, but his request did not ask it to render an opinion on his behavior on the talk page, which has been going on for over a month. During that time he has been repeatedly asked not to, and then warned about the consequences of acting uncivilly and making personal attacks. I have documented his repeated violations of policy on the Protest Warrior talk page here in hopes that an administrator will see fit to block him for a period until he realizes that his behavior is unnacceptable and must change. Thank you. Lawyer2b 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's warning was in response to a NPA report I filed. Jossi decided the 8 hour 3RR warning was enough (he was blocked by the time Jossi got the NPA). His attacks continue however they are a little more muted. But he is now trying to "game the system" by solicting the efforts of other editors to evade 3RR. See diffs. --Tbeatty 10:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, it's getting worse. He is now accusing editors of vandalism.  I have updated the Personal Attacks noticeboard.  He has tried the patience of the community on this article and his reverts, personal attacks and gaming the system.  He should be banned indefinetely for exhausting the patience of the community.  --Tbeatty 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Also, he created a sock puppet to evade 3RR. I filed an ANI in addition to the new personal attack. --Tbeatty 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for a lock-down?
Hi Jossi: I think Eiffel programming language is in need of a page protection to let an edit wheel cool down. Here's the unfortunate sequence of events:
 * 1) New Wikipedian, and creator of Eiffel, User:Bertrand Meyer, added quite a lot to the article over the last few days.  A little of it tended slightly in the rah-rah direction, but substantially it was excellent improvement to the article.
 * 2) I (re-)raised a concern about the idiosyncratic use of coloration of code samples in the article.  I wasn't actually the first to mention it on the talk page, but I did invite comments on the small issue at an article RfC.  Basically, the style Bertrand was using is apparently what Eiffel software does in their own publications, but seems to contrast with other Wikipedia programming language articles (IMO needlessly).
 * 3) * Neither I nor any other editors actually changed the usage, but just discussed it on the talk page, with sentiment apparently leaning towards "use the WP standard for inline, but the Eiffel-style for blocks".
 * 4) Here's where it gets unfortunate: Bertrand got a rush of ego to his brain, and decided to be outraged that anyone would dare second guess his stylistic preferences.... since we're non-experts in his language.
 * 5) After a bit of foot stomping, and adding various insults like calling Wikipedians "incompetent zealots" and "mob rule" and the like (some of it in email, but mostly on the article talk page), Bertrand decided to blank out all his additions to the article (and then some, he also blanked other editor's changes since his start of editing).  He is claiming that he never released his contributions, he reserves copyright, use of it is piracy, etc.
 * 6) A few editors (myself included), restored the blanked content, and Bertrand violated 3RR in continually blanking all the recent additions to the article (mostly additions by him).
 * 7) Well, a few more blankings and restorations, with a couple other editors (including one probable sock-puppet) joining in the blanking "showing solidarity with Dr. Meyer".

Ultimately, we'll use the contributions, since many of them are helpful. But in the meanwhile, it's probably better to let everyone spin their wheels rather than revert more. The old version from last week or whatever isn't really bad (certainly not "a disgrace" as Bertrand alleges). The additions are better (at least mostly so), but they'll still be better a week or two from now. It will, unfortunately, take a little bit of work to figure out exactly what was blanked and restored in such a way as not to miss any useful changes in the mix. LotLE × talk 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to unprotect
I think tempers have probably chilled enough. We created a scratch version that incorporated the additional material, and conversation has generally stopped. I think the few editors who had the odd idea that they were "protecting" Bertrand Meyer from the GFDL have probably gotten over it. It's hard to know for sure, but I think Eiffel programming language is ready to edit. LotLE × talk 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hit your user page. I suspect it's because of the warning you left him. I was going to leave a warning on his page but there appears to be no point. --Tbeatty 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another admin has already blocked this user for vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notification
I mentioned your name here. Sandy 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Canons of page construction
What is going on at Canons of page construction? Why did you turn a full article into a redirect to a page that contains very little of the content you blanked? -- Cyde Weys 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an user there that, against consensus, merged five articles and moved articles articles around. I have explained to him that he cannot make such major changes without agreeing first. See the discussion at Talk:Golden_canon_of_page_construction. I will appreciate your intervention. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was three, not five. My short version of the story is on the Talk:Book design page that you had it redirected to for a while.  Looks like I at least (at last?) got some support there.  Jossi, thanks for finally joining in and helping to edit the new page I made. Dicklyon 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A royal waste of time IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 07:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
Hi, thanks for doing something about the disruptive edits of 70.68.206.90 at Race and intelligence. The actual (registered) editors at that page are normally doing a great job (although they disagree a lot), and use the page and talk page in an exemplary fashion—the anon editor is certainly an exception. Is it possible to block only that user or semi-protect against anon users instead? We others would like to keep working, after all. Arbor 11:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just saw you comment on the talk page. When you protected the article you stated the reason "edit war", and I assume you meant the reverted vandalism by an anon user, 70.68.206.90. That was a good call. But your talk page comments seem to indicate that you protected because of POV problems. That's not only a terribly bad call (look at the talk page—we have work enormously hard to remove POV all the time), but you can't just do that. The article references pretty much every statement it makes (there are 134 references)—it's the very model of NPOV. Every normative statement is debated and sourced. Facts are reported as facts (and still sourced), opinions are reported as opinions (and sourced), and we work very hard at evaluating what weight these opinions have, who is in the majority, which groups support which viewpoints, etc. As I said (and an earlier peer review contains several such proclamation): This article is the very model of NPOV, and one of the very best Wikipedia articles there is. I strongly ask you to reconsider, and at least decide for which reason you protected the page. Protecting us from an anon vandal is fine, but you cannot just take a side, without much preparation I suspect, in a very complicated debate that the other editors (on both sides of the fence) are pursuing in an exemplary fashion Arbor 12:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the edit war you decided to protect this page over is with User talk:70.68.206.90 who has already been warned, and temporarily blocked from editing the R&I article last week. So that individual has a history of wanting to disrupt us working at the page, and I suggest you just follow standard procedure and block him for good, instead of protecting the page (which annoys us more than him). Arbor 12:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding on that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Source for Image:Zodiac woodcut.png?
I was just thinking of moving Image:Zodiac woodcut.png over to Commons, but the source isn't listed so I held off. Do you remember where you got this particular image from? Bryan 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden ratio
Its a pity your considering removing involvement from this article but completely understand why. I feel your contributions are quite valid. Oh like your home page by the way, especially the tabs... --Zven 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank for the kind words, Zven. I will get back to it, no worries. I am now collecting good material for an upcoming article about the Golden ratio in the Arts. I have found it quite difficult to collaborate on an edit by edit basis with a certain editor, as you may have observed, so I have decided to withdraw for a while. Without action there is no reaction...(Yield an overcome as per Laozi) so maybe that editor may get either bored, or hopefully he will learn the ropes and appreciate collaborating. We shall see... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you like the tabs, yo need to tell that to User:Phaedriel, she was kind enoough to do these for me. Yes, there are some really nice people in WP as well... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @


 * Ok, will do, I have already snaffled them for a little mediaWiki project I am involved in. Agreed, collaboration is the key rather than Gate keeping --Zven 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zven's first comment above. See my remarks in Talk:Golden_ratio and User_talk:Dicklyon. On the other hand, I also agree with your comment about participation becoming toxic. I stayed away for about 2 days when I had some time, because I was overly upset by the hostility (it literally kept me awake part of last night).

Regrding your proposal for a separate article on the Golden ratio in the Arts, are you certain that a separate article is preferable to adding that content to Golden ratio? Finell (Talk) 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We shall see... We can summarize it at Golden ratio, and spin out Golden ratio in the arts if there is too much material... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on NBGPWS's talk page

 * I've already raised this issue on Tbeatty's talk page, but I just thought I would also let you know that User: NBGPWS has been reverting every single comment I attempt to make on his talk page regarding his canvassing campaign among other Wikipedia editors.


 * Three times in the past several hours by my estimate.


 * If it's not important, then feel free to disregard these comments.


 * I just thought I'd inform you that NBG's temporary block obviously didn't have any perceptible impact on his behavior.


 * I'm not sure if this situation calls for arbitration, or some lesser intervention.


 * Thank you, in advance.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: Four times.


 * (sigh)

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is his prerrogative. If user becomes disruptive, you can place a note at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC on more disruptions by Kmaguir1
Greetings, if you're inclined, see this: Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Thanks, --Anthony Krupp 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for poll?
Can I ask you to explain on the talk page why you feel there is no need for a poll? And maybe to reformat into an abstain - no need for poll rather than add a subheading? --Barberio 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I do not think that polls are a device to be used in these circumstances, and it is a valid option. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please say this on the talk page, since a commentless objection appears empty. --Barberio 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion on the subject kept getting side tracked into 'is NPOV the prime policy?' instead of discussing the quote. So this poll is intended to focus discussion on the quote, not as an actual vote in itself. --Barberio 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unnecessary poll IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to take part in the discussion then and give some reasoning for keeping the quote? --Barberio 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you
For your recent comment, (Talk, WP:RS). I really tried to present the situation as simply as I could. Newsgroup postings being archived on personal websites. And then cited. I tried to make it simple. Thank you for understanding the issue is that. And not other things. Terryeo 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha
The Alpha Phi Alpha article continues to be the subject of vandalism by one user who only uses an AOL sockpuppet ID. HIs official IDs are Bobbydoop or MikeandIke, however he no longer usies these in an effort to disguise him edits. This user and the AOL IDs used has been blocked multiple times by various admins, but only comes back and makes the same or new vandalism edits. He also removes the history from his discussion page(s) so that it appears like he has done nothing wrong. Is it possible that you can protect the page for a certain period so that anonymous or newly registered are not able to make changes? Ccson 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I left this message, the user has review my contributions and discovered my request to you. He has created a new ID, NinjaNubian, in an effort to avoid being a new user and stil be able to vandalize the page. Ninjanubian was created on August 30, just minutes after my request to you. It's no coincidence, it's the same person. Please Help!! Ccson 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel lobby in the United States
Question for you: Can NPOV tag be removed/moved to specific section? Best. --Ben Houston 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell Bard is not who you think.
He wrote this stinging critique of Mearsheimer and Walt's paper. I actually relied on Mitchell primarily because he is in opposition to the more controversial claims of Mearsheimer and Walt. I strongly think you are not acting with precision here. --Ben Houston 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied on that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1 still
The latest thing is after the failure of his malicious AfD's, he's taken to repeatedly deleting the portrait image from Danny Yee... showing an ongoing hostility to the bio because I wrote it. Any thoughts. Want to give him a preemptive short term block as a slapdown? (It's not 3RR yet, but if his other behavior show a pattern, this just means he'll do it twice a day every day). LotLE × talk 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The point
The point of that was to show how absurd it is sometimes to stick to rules like "don't say terrorism." --Gabi S. 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Libel-Protection Unit
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Threats made by TheftByEating
He has apparently "reported" you to The Jimbo. I really think the quality of your edits will speak for you, but if you need, I will vouch for your character. Of course, if you would prefer to have no mention of this distasteful little affair on your talk page, I would certainly not mind your removing this section altogether. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This person may be a bit off, if you know what I mean. Better ignored. Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I just noticed this, you might, by the way, be interested to see this: WP:ANI#Ramand.2FTheftByEating_sock_drawer. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I will keep an eye on these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi
I'm not inclined to unblock. It's just a well-deserved 24 hour block, and I don't think that's such a tremendous deal that we have to worry about shortening it. I'm concerned by this: "I won't revert anymore. But the sources only establish that they consider him to be Jew. --Pjacobi 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)" followed by this: 15:59, September 2, 2006 Pjacobi (Talk | contribs | block) (rv - still no reference for self-identification -- please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who is a Jew%3F#Who is a Jew for purposes of Wikipedia articles). I think he needs the full 24 hours to cool off, and that it should stand. Dmcdevit·t 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 24hrs is not a big deal, and I am sure he will understand that it was necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Luca Pacioli
I added some material to and did some editing and reorganizing of Luca Pacioli. If you are so inclined, take a look and feel free to correct, revise, or undo what I did. I came across two references that might interest you: Be well! Finell (Talk) 10:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (I added this one to the articles references and added material from it. Although only the second paragraph of this paper discussed Pacioli, it is dense with information).
 * Luca Pacioli's Polyhedra
 * Great work, Finell. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Libel Я. Us
See here for explanation. -Ste|vertigo 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting article by Gamaliel. But not very accurate.  I am only familiar with the first example.  Only one source mentions prostitute and the advertisement is for an escort.  Other sources don't use "prostitute" to describe this person.  Gamaliel wants to inlude him on the "List of Known Prostitutes" without a single John or an arrest or a conviction for prostitution.  I am more worried about the POV warriors that want a lax sourcing standard so they can smear opponents with little or no prrof (this was a politically notable figure that Gamaliel wants to tag as a "Known Prostitute."  I'll let the reader guess which side of the political spectrum he was on given the editor).   What's also interesting is that Gamaliel has complained on the WP:BLP page that all this should be on the subjets talk page yet he has no talk page edits.  So far, this means he has complained in two places about this issue yet hasn't raised it once on the talk page.  --Tbeatty 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense paranoia, Stevertigo. These are good initiatives and will be bettyer if supported by good editors. The times for being irresponsble in our editing, are long gone. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is of course a standard rhetorical tactic to refer to something as "paranoia." Its particularly nonsensical when used as a counter to the more common usage when applied to a excessive fear of "libel." Certainly wikien is a good place for this discussion, and you should participate (more) in it. -Ste|vertigo 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am engaged in the ongoing discussions at wikien. Note that it will only take one LP with deep pockets to paralyze the project if we do not do something about it. If you love this project, then join me in protecting it from such fate, rather than dismiss it as it is is not a real problem. My view is that this is a real threat and will escalate as Wikipedia becomes more important as a source of information. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "...it will only take one LP [sic?] with deep pockets to paralyze the project if we do not do something about it. If you love this project, then join me in protecting it from such fate, rather than dismiss it as it is is not a real problem...this is a real threat and will escalate..." Please consider contributing to writing a fearmongering article. We seem to be missing one. -Ste|vertigo 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fearmongering has nothing to do with it, rather it is a cold reality. Burying your head in the sand will not make the problem go away. I know of at least one such case that is now on the open. I cannot comment on it now, because I have been asked to keep it under wraps for now. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are plenty of examples of political operatives and persons with political agenda's editing articles.  Some are even admins which arguably are sanctioned by the foundation.  You may not have politicians going after Wikimedia but I don't think the big organizations like MoveOn or Judicial Watch will let a threat like that go by.  At some point, a group will file a class action lawsuit to simply have it shut down because it thinks wikipedia will be a net negative to their side.  --Tbeatty 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO the threat can come from anywhere. And when it happens it will be nastier than it has so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Copycat lasted for a day. Amazing that this happened considering how high profile this BLP is.--Tbeatty 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Complex problem with Eiffel (programming language)
Turns out Bertrand Meyer is back to editing the Eiffel article, in what I more-and-more think is a violation of WP:AUTO. Unfortunately, the two first things he did were: (1) make a new round of what I perceive as quite insulting comments; (2) revert all the work I had done in cleaning up the tone of his text.

This is all very frustrating to me. I'm sure you can tell. And I'm flustered about what to do next. Could I ask for your opinion at Talk:Eiffel (programming language). LotLE × talk 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re: welcome
Hi, thanks for welcoming me, now that I've got an account is there something I should be doing to help, cause I'm not a very good writer... I've read some pages on how to edit and that and yeah any pointers would be good. Thanks JuliaRowan 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists in Wikipedia
For some reason, User:Radiant! keep trying to mark this essay as historical/deprecated. Could you keep an eye on it? LotLE × talk 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. LotLE × talk

RfC on Canons of page construction
Jossi, long time, almost. I've added some stuff and made rearrangements to Canons of page construction and made related minor corrections to some other articles. Since a lot of this is along lines that I believe you might not like, I went ahead and did an RfC to get opinions from other editors and admins; Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology; I wasn't sure what category to put it into, so move it if there's a better one. Please add your comments; or if this is not needed, because I'm wrong about what you might object to, you can go ahead and cancel it. By the way, the copy of Tschichold I was able to get is in Dutch, so I have a hard time interpreting some of it. Still, it's fascinating and useful. Dicklyon 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New IRC Bot
No problem in running a bot and feeding such a channel, the only gap is that there is no separate wikimedia feed for just those changes, so the bot would need to automatically filter anything else and just report on those.

The bot could automatically retrieve the category on a periodic basis and thus update what is/isn't report, so there would be a lag between new entries and exits, but I guess that isn't such a big deal.

The only question I have is would be regarding what you want reported. Are you just looking for every edit to any article in that category, or are you looking for more complex filtering?

To do it to report on every edit to any aticle in that category should be fairly straightforward, definitely something which could be setup quickly. --pgk 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Conversation moved to Wikipedia_talk:BLP_Patrol ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Trimming
Hi I took a look at Contemporary Sant Mat movements and was positively gentle. I don't think I will look at Mother Teresa as I have a POV on the subject and find that having a POV makes for bad editing! StopItTidyUp 12:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR again
I am trying to get things moving - step by step - on the primary/secondary sources issue. Since you had been an active participant in this discussion I think you should check in again, here,. I have broken my own proposed edits into four steps. We pretty much achieved consensus on step one and made an edit, the discussion now is centered on step two. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:203.197.169.20
Hi Jossi. I posted a related message on User:Gurubrahma's page. This editor is not active at the moment, so there is no vandalism in progress. However, when he is active, he is very prolific in deleting things like localized names of places. The odd thing is that occasionally, he adds a localized name. My Kannada is non-existent, and he may be contributing to those pages or vandalizing them -- I don't know. What I'm am wondering is if there is a way to monitor him so that when he begins to delete, he can be stopped before he goes through several dozen pages. (maybe not?) If you have ideas of what can/should be done, please let me know. Thank you. Actually, most of his edits appear to be valid, only the occasional deleting of non-Kannada names. (Also, I greatly regret my inability to bring the SSB mediation to a successful conclusion.) --BostonMA 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Modulor graphic
Thanks for resizing it. I also thought it was a bit large, but didn't know how to scale it. I know almost nothing about handling WP graphics (just the little I have figured out from looking at examples). Do you think the De Divina head should also be scaled down a bit? (That is a real, NOT rhetorical, question.) Also, I hope you don't object to my rather heavy editorial hand last night. Finell (Talk) 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit was great. To resize use |thumb|nnnpx, nnn meaning the number of pixes as in |thubm|320px ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry page
Hi, wasn't sure whether it was an automated bot but the psychiatry page that was reverted looked really good, alot more polished and succinct than previously. Needs a bit of formatting but 'gells' better. Cas Liber 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe better, maybe not. But a massive change without discussion, dismisses the hard work of many contibutors and it is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It would have been better if the changes were discussed, however almost all the info is still there, just has been reworded. In any case, I will have a longer look at old and new versions to synthesize old stuff which may have gone amiss when I have more time later (as the area is one I am familiar with). Cas Liber 07:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Had a bit of time spare and had a further look. I noted that there had been alot of contention about a particular sentence (about psychiatric disorders not being able to be cured) and it remains there, I can't see anything obvious which has been deleted as such. Anyway, I'll see if anything else crops up. cheers Cas Liber 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)