User talk:Jossi/archive11

New user help
Thanks for offering to help. I am totally confused because of an edit that I was trying to make which was flatly rejected by other edits. I considered their edits a. not in good faith b.  not according to wikipedia policy and I asked for protection of the page (from reverts). The protection was denied by user: Syrthiss and then I tried to contact her for some advice, but instead of getting a response she just deleted by question (she wrote "refactor page and reply" in the edit summary)  (???)

Wikipedia is a very inspiring place for me, with all the positive associations to global cooperation, and I would like to contribute, so I am asking for your help to understand what is going on. Thank you. Please let me know if it is easier for you to discuss this by email (although I believe that other new users could benefit from this).

The article is The Road to Reality --Book-worm 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome template ==

I love your welcoming template! I think I'd like to steal it. What is the template for it? Grand master  ka  05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I stole it from someone, you can steal it from me. Vive le GDFL. Template is at User:Jossi/Welcome ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I steal it too? :p Pacific Coast Highway (blah • typa-typa) 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, licensed under the GDFL, so you will not be "stealing" anything, just using what is there, freely. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I love that free licensing clause. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • typa-typa) 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Um yeah. thanks for your help, i am not sure if i like your welcome page all that much- 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- and i get a feeling it varies- you answer here?? As for my signature, i have been to a few pages that told me i should sign (````) and one that said ````. Either way i tried both b4 u said anythink and neither worked. dunno.  Its really puzzling- hay, do you (all) mean i sould press The "Sign your name:  " button? thus maybe u should change your welcome screen to:

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using the four tildes provided or Please remember to sign your name using the "Sign your name:  " button.

If thats correct.(?) I never looked below the "save page button" previously tar. Cilstr 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
Why did you change my change to the Verifiability page? I will change it back with slightly different wording.

Thank you,

Andrew Rutherford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrutherford (talk • contribs)


 * I would suggest that you become familiar with WP and its policies before you contribute to policy pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I'm new here, and as you've no doubt by now noticed, I've contributed a little at the Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche page. I've had a small exchange with User:Mgekelly and he told be about reporting Petrejo's behaviour to "Arbcom". Is there any way in which you could lend me some assistance? I've seen you've also done some speaking there about Petrejo. And thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia.Just passing by 05:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup
Thanks for your comment. I was actually quite worried about touching NPOV since its such a major policy, and so tense in editing, in some ways. The problem is it's never been cleaned up, maybe because people just "got used to it being a mess".

Theres a few other areas I can see that would help a lot too, but I don't want to do more until the little I've done gets consensus. Then a bit more cleanup would make sense. In the meantime could you take an informal look at a tentative draft I was working on, and see if you think it has any merit as a sort of "general direction", or criticisms? I don't say its perfect, but it's a lot more (to my mind) focussed and structured. Thoughts and critique?

Anyhow, thanks again for the support. It meant a lot, working on a page like that, even if the cleanup area was a very obvious one. FT2 (Talk 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take a look, and keep your fingers crossed... this policy page is tough to improve, and you may get not-so-positive feedback from others. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will need time to read the whole article, but my first impression is that it will be 'really difficult to gain consensus on changing the wording of the policy. I would suggest a different approach, small tweaks here and there, to clarify things rather than a massive re-write. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * About what I was thinking. Nobody will object much to putting it in logical order if its done respectfully and bit at a time so that they can be sure its not vandalism or missing something. But your comments on that version (being a "thats roughly what I was thinking" concept) would help guide any edits if they were acceptable to the community. FT2 (Talk 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will take a deeper look and make some comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I've made one small step to organizing NPOV policy a bit before leaving go for a time (see if the consensus likes it). No textual change whatsoever, just section organization, to group "Like with like" and give WP:NPOV some structure that's visible to the reader. No textual changes though. I'm thinking that at least should stand a chance of being acceptable to people. I hope.


 * FT2 (Talk 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Truncated edit
Your last edit to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) appears to be truncated. Al 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * yes. I noticed and fixed it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @

Hello Jossi
Re: Uncontexted on Forgiveness

I agree with your comments and believe that the text should be removed until a time when it can sufficiently justify its resources. I am removing the text, and would like to refer your attention to discussions current in the Articles for Deletion. The actual context of the text appears to be a self-referenced, non-reputible article on a book. After investigation of the citations given for that article A Course in Miracles it is in my humble opinion referenced only on and by a small group of non-secular publishers. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my discussion pages. I will make comments in the Discussion section of the article before the removal. Thanks. Ste4k 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What discussions on AfD are you referring to? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * many and several. But the forgiveness page has been cleaned up now over the past few days. That's where I had first seen your comments. Ste4k 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect revert
In your revert at, you did two things. First, you restored some text that had been cut by the browser bug, which is perfectly fine but isn't intentional vandalism. Then, you removed Neil Pert from the list of people influenced by Rand. As it turns out, Pert was indeed influenced, so his insertion was not vandalism. Then again, our consensus has been to list only philosophers who were influenced, not just anyone, therefore Pert does not belong. However, his removal is not routine reversion of vandalism, it is a content decision. Unfortunately, you combined the two, using a popup. This leaves the false impression that the Pert inclusion was vandalism.

For this reason, you should have done two reverts in succession: one to restore the accidentally deleted text, the other to remove Pert. The former could be a minor change with a brief comment along the lines of "restore text removed by browser bug", while the latter is not minor and deserves an explanation such as "consensus is to list philosophers only".

Thank you for understanding. Al 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not using a popup. I am using the administrator tool of rollback. Please do not bring article issues into my talk page. It will be more productive you place them at the article's talk page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I considered addressing you on your talk page to be a courtesy, since the issue didn't involve anyone else and didn't need public airing. Al 05:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not an issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice/help on confused editor
Hi Jossi: Trying to find someone to maybe help me out with a slightly odd editor. User:Ideogram is basically a good editor, fairly new, who works predominantly on articles about programming languages and related stuff. I don't think you have any expertise in those areas, but that's not the point. There are a couple of these topics that I've also done extensive work on.

Now here's the thing: Ideogram has made high quality edits on a number of articles. But at the same time, he has a tendency to get really carried away in a WP:POINT sort of way. He wishes for some articles he's worked on to advance to FA status, which is a good goal. At times, this overzealousness shows itself as overly broad deletion of well-discussed and consensus material; his ideas about directions to take articles aren't really bad in themselves, but he lacks a respect for process and social processes.

One of the things the Ideogram has rightly noticed is that many articles could do with more extensive and more rigorous citations. Again, an honorable goal. But in the last couple hours he took this to what I think is a fairly egregious WP:POINT violation. Specifically, on Programming language and Functional programming he added a tag to every 2nd or 3rd sentence. Most of them are weirdly nonsensical, and those things that migt genuinely need further specific citation are hard to sort out from the noise. Unfortunately, he's done the same thing in the past on these articles. Maybe other articles too, but those are two that I follow. Take a look at:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Programming_language&oldid=60923159
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_programming&oldid=60924668

I think the second is even more extreme than the first. In both cases, I reverted to the more parsimonious versions, but added a general "citations desirable" template to the top of the articles. I'm not sure if I chose the best template; none of the ones I found were exactly right. Both articles are actually pretty well cited already, though certainly both leave room for additional improvement.

I think maybe a bit of a nudge from an editor who is uninvolved with these topics—and who is an administrator—might guide Ideogram in the right direction. These shennanigans are a bit annoying to me, but I recognize that he's done valuable work, and generally aims to do more of it. LotLE × talk 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually know about programming languages, if fact I write PHP, PERL, RealBasic, and several scripting languages. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured that you'd know a bit, doing the digital arts stuff. I apologize if I put that the wrong way (i.e. claim you didn't know programming), I just meant that the specific content detail wasn't the issue, and understanding some such minutiae wasn't necessary.  LotLE × talk  04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The artilce looks pretty good to me. I will be happy to assist as a sounding board in case involved editors need a third opinion in disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it's good, and continues to improve. Both of the articles I mention, actually (I think FP is maybe slightly better than PL, but the latter has had more work lately... including the graphics created by me).  I really was just concerned about the WP:POINT use of the {fact} template.  Putting it one or two places where there is some genuine doubt or concern is one thing; putting it a hundred times scattered through an article is just disruptive.  It's not worth digging through the edit histories, but Ideogram did that several times before too (though not so extreme, but still adding it a bunch of places where it was hard to see any sense to the citation request).  LotLE × talk  04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadullah Khan

 * Oh, btw, with your minor help in retrieving Sadullah Khan from its premature deletion, it went through deletion review and a second AfD. Happily, the second result was unanimous "keep".  Not a hugely important bio, but it's always better to have something notable than not to have it.  LotLE × talk  04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photoshop
I just bought a copy of Photoshop. Any suggestion as to a good 'how to' book?MollyBloom 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Molly. Sorry but I can't help. I started using PS a long time ago and I am not familiar with current books. Go to a local bookstore, buy a latte and spend sometime browsing the shelves. There are many books on the subject out there, and I am sure you will find one that fits your learning mode. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 05:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent forgiveness edits
Hi Jossi, I wanted to give you a heads up that it seems clear that Ste4k has an agenda against ACIM. See the talk:A Course in Miracles discussion at the top of the page. I trust that is not in keeping with purpose of this project. I have solicited good minded edits from that page again and will continue to work on the article as time permits. Thanks for your help. speet 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, ACIM is definately not Christianity. If you want me to support that I will at lenght if necessary. But I will briefly say that ACIM would say that all religion is an illusion and a trick of the ego. ACIM is not about organized religion. That would be its opposite, in a sense. I reverted the section to its previous heading. Can we have discussion on this and arrive at a consensus? Note that another administrator deleted the section. What happened to tolerence of other viewpoints? Or are we into censorship of minority views? speet 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, why? I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Help! The administrator censor is imposing his POV again on the rest of the world, using his weight to determine what is a "minor cult."  Can we protect this page from this abuse?  I added cites and cleaned up the language a bit before he threw it in the fire along with the other books he disagreed with.  Again without discussion.  Thanks for whatever help you can provide.speet 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Crusader? Bad Faith? Walled Garden Snake?
Hello again Jossi, I've been reading a little more about you. Please feel free to tell me shoo if you think it best. I have a question about ethics, policy, and politics. Is it wrong for me to question the purpose of pages which appear to be walled gardens, or other massive constructions which cleary show that policy is to be foresaken for an elite few? Is that bad faith? Please keep in mind that I have only been working on WP for almost three weeks, so this question is asked honestly without a clue at all behind it. Thanks, and, by the way, here will be fine for the answers. Ste4k 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe that an article is not consistent with the content policies of Wikipedia, you can engage editors civilly and state your concerns. Are you familiar with the nuances of WP policy? If you do not, take some time to read them, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. If you have any questions about these, please let me know. If there is a specific example of such an article, let me know and I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the note that is atop this. The accusation is unfounded. For an example of what I consider to be a little outrageous, please see the list of people. Ste4k 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify for me what you see as outrageous, so that I can comment? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to me to be the largest conglomeration of WP:CSD possible. The entire idea behind wiki is to remove the old-guard root-directory/tree style of organization. I am aware that on disk and behind the scenes, the machine will still have such a structure based on its O/S, but the virtual idea of Wiki is to undo exactly that. To distinguish between various groups is to actually cast som POV where simply having the groups in overlapping categories is neutrally determined by overlapping consensus. The list itself as content will never be completed, of course, and the maintenance load is staggering at several levels... i.e. it adds only one link to a page, but all of those links to pages actually slow search engines down. It appears as a group to have been contested several times before which brings to my mind a taste of hypocrisy regarding policy. A new person, like myself, reads policy as hopeful. To find this laying about in a huge sparse tree undermines that sort of hope and appears to be blantantly contradictory or even defiant against policy Ste4k 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know that
I didn't know that fair use wouldn't allow for a book on a page with its author. I believe you, but I don't understand the point. Anyhow, thanks for letting me know. About the comments from speet above. The acronym ACIM is a registered trademark, and nothing more. I did my own research last night for a few hours and found three (rather than two) court documents on the case. I used all three in combination to get the facts and the timeline together. I put it all together into an article and I would appreciate your comments on it when you have the time. I still can't understand why this is so important, nor why there is supposed to be a controversy. Course in Miracles (book). Ste4k 14:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Block
Jossi User:Hotrodder91 is requesting an unblock, you blocked as a vandal sockpuppet though it's not clear to me from the edits how you reached that conclusion, the only thing I can see is the very first edit removing some vandalism which ended up leaving a blank page. Can you take a look when you get a sec? --pgk( talk ) 12:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am second abakharev 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I got an email message from him, yesterday. I responded that my action was an honest mistake and proceeded to unblock. Thanks for the head's up. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your WELCOME
Hauke 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should save it for the NPOV talk...
But it's hard to achieve anything there. Would you mind this change:


 * "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone" to "...consistently constructive, sensitive tone". This is a slight change, obviously, but both positive and sympathetic contradict the rest of the page IMO.

Sorry to bother. It's just a little tiresome jumping through hoops on the talk to get the smallest changes made and watching others have at the page as the mood strikes them. Marskell 08:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Marksell, but may I ask why are we spending so much time splitting hairs on policy? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I'm wasting so much time debating it with pseudoscience pushers. Whatever, sorry. Marskell 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a good reason to change policy... In my experience, the more rules, the more "creative" people get find ways to break them. It is a zero-sum game. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above isn't adding a rule. It's changing diction to avoid contradictory meanings on the page. We state "don't be sympathetic" and later "be sympathetic." As for defining "majority", it strikes me as a no-brainer; we shouldn't rely on words we don't define. Marskell 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for erase the Supernanny article. I was editing the links, and when I saved them, the article disappeared. It's the first time it has happened to me. Thank you for revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.117.68 (talk • contribs).


 * Not a problem... it happens... Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal
On your proposal, I have to say that currently I'm actively assembling a case for arbitration. I suspect that the only thing that will stop this problem is a personal attack parole (and perhaps a revert parole too). --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An ArbCom case would work, but given the fact that there are several editors asking for a sign of good faith, I think that it may be a good idea to lift the block as per the proposal. Alienus, will be surely reading this, so his options would be very clear: don't engage in any more personal attacks. Best he could for himself would be to show the ArbCom that he is sincere about respecting other editors. Worst he could do is to continue with these attacks and earn a parole ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus arbitration
See this application. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you


מזל טוב ! ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Phaedriel and Adminship
Phaedriel gets asked to be an admin on a very regular basis, in fact she had someone go so far as to create a page last week... so far she has been holding out but you're by far not the first person to suggest it. Have a look here Requests for adminship/Phaedriel and in her talk page archives. Hope that helps, happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus - ArbCom or RFC?
I would like to ask your support in arguing against skipping RFC. I do think there is legitimate concern regarding Al's abrasiveness and inflammatory edits, but I think skipping the RFC doesn't help. It only furthers the impression that he is being fast tracked. I think it would be best to give him every opportunity to adjust his behaviour, as he does add value to the encyclopedia. It also strengthens a future arbcom case if he chooses not to do so. I've sent this request to User talk:Sasquatch as well. ^^James^^ 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom has already decided to hear the case. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be so. However, if those who brought the case to ArbComm state that it should go to RfC first, I'm sure they will comply. Al 23:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If Alienus can assert that an RfC could result in him stopping his personal attacks and incivility, then I'd support it. However I don't see any evidence that there would be such an outcome. If a change in behavior doesn't result, then what's the purpose of an RfC? -Will Beback 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't believe it would accomplish much of anything. Its but another attempt to troll and garner negative attention. As an upstanding wikipedian, I must admit we should honor Jame's and Alienus's request and henceforth drop the fruitless rfc and provide him with the straight course to rfar. That will give him all the attention and legitimate concern he needs. -Randall Brackett 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus has already affirmed his commitment to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, hence the removal of his most recent block. I do think an RFC is in order, and I believe Al will try to understand and sympathize with the communities concerns. But if, as you say, the RFC does not result in a positive change, then the RFA case will be that much stronger. And it will be far more difficult for his supporters, such as myself, to lobby in his defence. ^^James^^ 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, a RfAr is only appropriate if everyone is convinced that an RfC is useless. So far, the only argument offered in support of this conclusion is that Tony Sidaway thinks so.  This seems underwhelming.
 * To answer Will's question directly, I can see how an RfC might affect my behavior. An RfAr, however, is guaranteed not to.
 * I believe that an RfAr would be premature at this time and would not be productive. Therefore I am asking that you allow the pending RfC to continue.  Al  08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments
Your advice on how to respond to persons who simply delete information with which they don't agree was a helpful comment. But, I don't really believe it would be useful in the case of the Kennedy related articles. In a  project such as this web site there must some element of a good faith adherence to web site rules. But, there is a group of editors, with at least one, named Gamaliel, who is an administrator, who is dedicated to keeping information contrary to its beliefs out of the Kennedy assassination articles. Anything they disagree with is deemed "nonsense" or "junk." Gamaliel brags, on his user page about the "nonsense" he has to edit (meaning "delete").

Oddly enough, most of the group appear to know little about the subject, and seem to gain their information from a true believer web site on the suject matter.

It goes in cycles. One will come on for a while and delete material with the help of a back up editor who will join in deleting out an item to ensure it stays out. After building up a record of such conduct, another name will appear, and the cycle will continue.

Their beliefs in their viewpoint are simply far stronger than their adherence to the rules of the web site.

RPJ 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That pattern happens sometimes in articles about controversial subjects. I would advise to follow the Dispute resolution process. You can start by placing a Request for comment. When you do that, add a summary of the dispute under a new section on the article's talk page named "RfC Summary" so that commenting editors can get a quick understanding of the nature of the dispute. You can see an example of such section here:  Talk:Ayn_Rand. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, my dear Jossi!
My dear Jossi, please allow me to wholeheartedly thank you for your most kind words and for considering worthy of the buttons. It is a big honor that one of our most experienced and kind users, like you are, have taken the time to review me, and that you have a positive image of me is a great flattery. Since I have very little time right now, I want you to know that I'll write you a longer reply by email tomorrow, but I didn't want to miss the chance of thanking you warmly for you generous and kind approach to me. A big big hug,  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Content disputes
Hi, Jossi! Thank you for your interest to the discussion at Village pump (policy). I would like to keep the descussion there general and not concentrated on a certain article, but I would be glad if you suggest me how to resolve the real disputes I am involved in.

One of the disputes concerns Ukrainization. I proposed to base the article on the definition of the subject found in the literature. But another users proposes his own definition, which, in my view, is an Original Research. Please have a look at the discussion on the talk page.

There is also a large dispute about neutrality of the word "liberate" and its derivatives (see Tal:Lviv, Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper and archives therein). Now a mediation is requested to resolve the dispute, but I am doubt whether all the parties agree to participate.--AndriyK 17:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus
Requests for arbitration/Alienus has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Evidence and proposals and comments at Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Workshop. Fred Bauder 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

Ukrainization
Hi, Jossi! Thank you for your message on Talk:Ukrainization. I answered it there.

Could I ask you to have a look at one more article?--AndriyK 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sathya
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Sathya. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's RFA
Hi, Jossi. On Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist, you opposed, saying "Confrontational tone in his RFA does not bode well." I haven't voted yet, but have been reading through both the supporting and opposing rationales. The confrontational tone in his RFA wasn't immediately obvious to me; would you mind pointing out where you saw it? I'm not trying to change your vote, and you're free to ignore this if you don't wish to respond. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion is requested
I appreciate your comment at Talk:Ukrainization about Civility. I think, you further participation in the dispute would be helpfull.

I found a comment on this page by User:Irpen which, IMHO, is unrelated to the subject of the article. In accord with WP:NPA, Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. I decided to move the comment to AndriyK's talk to keep the discussion at Talk:Ukrainization free from personal attacks and focussed on the topic of the article. But Irpen restored the comment.

I need an opionion of a neutral person, whether I was right or wrong when I was moving this comment. In the case I was wrong, what is the right way to keep the article talk focused on the subject? Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Here is another example : Irpen moved a long discussion from his talk to the Talk:Russian architecture. What is the best way to deal with it? I tried to contact Irpen but got a very unpleasant answer.

Thanks in advance--Mbuk 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My entry was not at all a personal attack. To dismiss the valid criticism as a personal attack is an old tactic. However, I always welcome more opinions on any issue. More here. --Irpen 06:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Irpen, the suggestions about civility were not directed at you specificaly, but to all involved editors. The first step towards cooling off a discussion, could be that we ourselves take the lead in not escalating it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Grmbl, first you speedily deleted the while I tried (again) to figure out RFD2, and then you closed the RFD2 while I tried to figure out RFD TOP + BOTTOM. That's no fun, next time I put the RFD after RFD2. Not completely serious: --&#160;Omniplex 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. That page was already deleted before, so I speedied it, on the same basis as previous deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, your speedy deletion was okay, I was only annoyed when both my RFD2 and afterwards the TOP/BOTTOM came too late. I've now added some other RFDs. --&#160;Omniplex 07:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems... have fun... ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Elven6
Hi Jossi - you had warned this user regarding his comments on Talk:Sikhism with npa2. Now I've had to warn him with npa3. At this point, I ask you to please keep an eye on him for the next violation will mandate a block. This Fire Burns Always  19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation
I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:List guideline
Would you mind inclusing your opinion in this matter? It concerns a section in a guideline you included and that is now being disputed. Thanks, ZsinjTalk 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. :-) --ZsinjTalk 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No original research
Ha ha that was funny. Thanks for the compliment as well. I was just piping in on the existing discussion. It seemed like it was descending to a point of ridiculousness ;) Wjhonson 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well... I wrote what I wrote and then, when checking your contribs, thought that it may be read as somewhat condescending on my part. Nevertheless, I still agree with SlimVirgin and Will Beback in that regard. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jossi
Consider it done, dear Jossi ;) A page as special as yours requires my full attention, so just give me a couple of days to do something *truly* worthy of it. Now is the perfect time to ask you, do you have any preferences regarding colors, layout, etc? Otherwise, I'll come up with something of my own - you choice. Btw hun, I've been wanting to contact you for days regarding our last talk; these last days at work and my not-so-talktative mood have conspired to keep me away from it - I'm so sorry. I've got a two-weeks holiday now, so I promise to drop by and resume it, k? Have a great weekend! Big hugs,  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it in your capable hands....≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please leave me be
Jossi, please do not revert my genuine attempts to help Wikipedia, as you have done here. In fact, I would ask that you not revert anything I do. Have someone else do it. Your hands are too dirty to be "administrating" me. My agreement to discontinue airing my allegations of your administrative abuse is contingent upon you leaving me alone. Please, let's not make this any worse than it already is.

Regarding your comment that removing notices from WP:PAIN is a task for admins to perform (the reasoning behind your revert), I disagree. The page in question specifically states that reviewers (i.e. not necessarily administrators, as administrators have their own separate instructions) should remove the report if the user in question has not been given a higher-than- warning. Such conditions were present. If, as in our previous disagreement, you feel your subjective interpretation of the rules as written overrides how they are written, please have someone else enforce them upon me. You and I should go our own merry separate ways. Reswobslc 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will ask other admins to get involved, rather than continue to engage you directly. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the prompt fix on the Reliable Sources page. - Zeno Izen 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Timbercon
I see you fixed the vanity aspects of this article; I started to do this myself but then ran into the notability issue and decided I'd wasted enough time. You have recommended removing the AfD, how about the notability issue (30 employees, etc.)?
 * Maybe you can reopen the Afd, this time just on notability. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you're an admin, on a separate topic involving the authors but not the article, can you offer any advice regarding my query to ANI about how to handle the sock-puppet and spam issues? I'm beginning to feel this is a lost cause and that this 4-headed, serial spammer has won. --A. B. 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can ask for a checkuser, to verify if these accounts are indeed sockpuppets. Place a request at WP:RFCU. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not used RFCU before but it looks like there are some high hurdles imposed for an RFCU:
 * Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
 * Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
 * Please do not list cases involving "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
 * Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.
 * As an admin and based on your experience, do you think this sockpuppet group meets these hurdles? If not, what steps, if any, should I take next? Or should I just leave this alone? I don't want to go down another blind alley wasting my time and others'.
 * Also, should I try to get that URL blocked using the blacklist? Or, leave it alone?
 * Thanks,--A. B. 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Place a request at WP:RFCU if these sockpuppets persist on that article. Otherwise, better leave it alone. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ED deletion
Hey, I'm curious, and I hope I'm not coming off as hostile: how did you manage to conclude that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was unfixable and a WP:NOR and WP:V violation or whatever you said? Your vote went up minutes after the nomination, but you don't seem to be previously involved in the article. If you just skimmed through it, I ask you to read it carefully and see if it's really as unverified as you claim it is. It might make you see the value of this article and prevent the deletion of a perfectly valid encyclopedia entry. Thanks for your time, Karwynn (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In perusing the archives, it seems that editors have been unable to find a way to fix the article to conform with WP's policies. If would change my vote to keep (and I am considering it), if there are any indications that the article is fixable. Let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point, but just from an optimistic standpoint, I think we should give it a shot and see if it is possible. You know, Be Bold and all.  If it turns out to be a mistake, we could delete it then, but I think we should give it a shot, rather than just taking the easy way out.  With enough effort, the problems in the article can be fixed; in fact, that attempt is going on right now.  Check out any version from yesterday and compare it to the current, there's much more citation going on now than before.  If this progress continues, we could have a pretty good article. Karwynn (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Karwynn, sometime is best to start clean. I would argue that it would be best to delete the whole text and stub it with one paragraph about that wiki, removing all material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. What are the chances for that edit to remain for more that 10 seconds? I can be bold and do it, but what will happen is that accusations of 'admins vandalizing articles and abusing power' will be flying all around. See my point? I could try it to prove my point... but is it worth it? ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of No personal attacks. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -- NORTH talk 00:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

working with others
Ste4k, for an editor with less than a month editing this project, you may want to slow it down a bit and learn the ropes before teaching them. Some friendly advise: You could be an excellent editor, but you need to learn to work with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I have asked for help in this regard over the past month and been ignored. Per working with others, if you examine how I have been taught and treated by others over the past month, then there really shouldn't be any question about what I consider normal at this time. The very first edits that I made on WP, were deleted, swiftly, and if you'd like to see that discussion, let me know. It resulted in a 3RR against me for including "original research". I believe I am very fair about this article. I have been accused of trying to delete it, ruin it, etc, etc. I rewrote Marianne Williamson. Please notice the difference. I rewrote Social Justice in the Liberal State. Please note the difference. Trying to provide sources for this particular article has only brought about flames, accusations, etc., etc., none of which are true. I want my son to be able to trust this encyclopedia for his homework. I want to be able to rely on this encyclopedia for "verifiable" (at least) facts. The truth can find itself in the future. In the meantime, I am sure that you understand the difference. I don't have any particular point of view about this subject matter. Nor did I have any particular point of view about those other articles. I haven't read the book and I couldn't even tell you what's inside it. I have read the reliable sources though, and if there are more of those, then you should add them to the article. As an admin, I suspect you know the difference between the wheat and the chaff. Ste4k 07:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, in case you don't believe me when I say that there was only one editor that added all of that material to the article which I sorted out today for review in discussion, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=3615625&oldid=3615613 . Also, I just took a peek at your comments up above in the ED AfD section. To me they seem to speak for my perspective with your words regarding this other article. Ste4k 08:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said elsewere, you are welcome to apply your understanding, but I would counsel you take a deep breath and slow down in your attempt to "fix" Wikipedia. It takes more that one person you, know? It takes a community of people working together. By your approach we shall delete 90% of all material in Wikipedia. My perspective is that WP does not need Don Quijotes, rather, it needs editors willing to work together and accept the work in progress nature of this project, as well as accept that it requires patience and persistance. You may want to read about deletionism, that seems to be your approach. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia is broken, Jossi, only a few articles. It does take more than one person, and I don't think that by including reputible resources into one of 1,263,400 articles that I have caused such a schism in the community that 90% of all material is in jeopardy. How do you compare my waiting for three weeks to include a statement made by the Federal District court impatient or deletionist? Ste4k 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Hey, Jossi, Steve Caruso here :-) We have an interesting situation from WelshCountryside (talk), who has requested Advocacy over accusations of sockpuppetry. Would you be able to take the case? Peace! אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again :-) How did this turn out? I see now that User:WelshCountryside has been blocked as a sockpuppet and I'm a bit confused. If the case is over, please be sure to set it to "closed" on the AMA Request page. Thanks! אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that this editor was blocked indefinitely as another sock of the banned editor, User:PoolGuy. He was bocked by user:Tony Sidaway. I will close the AMA request. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya
Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion etc.) and copyedit, perfect , ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am honored by the offer, but my time is quite limited during the next month or so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear Jossi
My dear Jossi, I've just returned from a short trip a few hours ago, and tho my head is killing me, I came with an idea for your userpage burning in my mind... so I couldn't resist and I sat in front of the comp for a couple of hours, and here it is! I hope you like it. I've already prepared the proper subpages and additional necessary code under your userspace, and as far as I can tell, it is working fine. However, it is a golden rule of mine never to "actually" touch another person's userpage myself, so if you like the design, just copy it straight from my sandbox into your own page. I hope this is but the beginning of a friendship, my dear Jossi - I swear that we'll talk more after I've slept a few hours, sounds good to you? :) Let me know if you want me to change anything from that design, otherwise - enjoy it! A great, big and tired hug, your new friend,  Phaedriel   &hearts;  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that you liked it so much, sweetheart - I'll go to sleep with a broad smile :) I loved the wonderful flower, thanks so very much! Btw, I expanded the tabs' size to fit the text you entered - please let me know if that works, k? See you later! Hugs,  Phaedriel   &hearts;  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Sily me! I could have added a fifth tab to include and interconnect your Talk page too - just whistle my way and I'll do it if you wish, k hun? But... wait for me until tommorrow, I beg you ;) Hugs, Sharon.
 * Thank you, Sharon. I just did redirects back to my talk page... Have a good rest now. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Naughty destruction of Lists in Wikipedia
It appears that our friend Francis Schonken has devoted himself again to destruction of WP:LISTS. Or perhaps it is a coincidentally new user User:Polar Deluge. I have tried to sort things out, having stumbled upon the issue after having massively purged my watchlist a few months back. It looks like the destruction is just a couple days old.

What seems to have been done was a redirect/move of the guideline/essay to the entirely unrelated page List guideline. The latter, of course, is just about formatting stuff like when to use numbered and unnumbered lists, nothing at all about content and verifiability. Anyway, I hope I've sorted out the mess, at least mostly. It looks like FS did a move on the talk page which destroyed all the history though. LotLE × talk 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to WP:AFG in this case, but is becoming strenously difficult. One month in WP, edits only on lists, and knowing the ropes extremely well from the first edit... How does one address concerns like this? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eek. Didn't know this was going on. Anyway, thank you much for restoring the two items to the main page. Cheers, Universitytruth 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, exactly. It seems pretty obvious that Polar Deluge is another name for some existing username. But that's not prohibited or anything. If it were used as sockpuppetry, that's verboten. But just as a way to organize different editing interests, it's allowable. Heck, I myself actually have three accounts (my main one w/ 10k+ edits; one for semi-bot tool I wrote, User:CitationTool; and one just as a silly joke, with a half-dozen edits). I think we just have to look at the actual destructive behavior, not the name used as such. LotLE × talk  16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, frowned upon, but not explicily forbidden, unless the sp account is used for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

About user Ste4k
Hey Jossi, Steve Caruso here :-) I have a couple quick questions for you about User:Ste4k in regards to her RfC. Could you hit me up via email? Although I'd -really- prefer email, if you'd rather not, give me a poke on my talk page. Peace and thanks! אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 02:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * שלום אמר
 * In regard to your question about user Ste4k. What can I assist you with? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just hoping to get your opinion on the RfC and where you think things fall within this conflict. It turns out that she emailed me a while back requesting Advocacy against someone who was harassing her, then suddenly withdrew her request, only to recently inform me of the RfC. Due to the very small amount of information I was given, and the wad of stuff to sort through from the RfC, and the fact that I was not involved at all with the proceedings, I'm struggling to get a bigger picture of what exactly is going on. Since I saw your John Hancock on the RfC I figure I might as well ask you, someone who has shown themself to be trustworthy. :-) As of now, I'm not even sure if I'm taking the case. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable souces
The reason for my comments is that that other admin deleted my article and stated that it "did not have one single reliable secondary source". Would you be willing, as an admin, to support the view that that is overbroad? It's going to be pointless to try to get mediation if nobody takes my side :) Wjhonson 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the name of the deleted article? Was the article deleted via an AfD process? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kittie May Ellis. It was AfD KEEP, then closer was pestered by gnats who caused him to Set-up for Review, he went back and marked it delete.  Then it was reopened open then deleted again, then reposted, then speedy deleted.... its a mess.  All because of the conflict over what sources are WP:RS :0 thats the short version.  But you can see that evidently different admins have differnt ideas on it. Wjhonson 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight"
in article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" --> "Undue weight" is written:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

My Question : what do you mean by "popular views" and majority? for example if in one of the wikipedia languages, one view is the most popular and the other views are minority views, but in the whole world other views are majority, which view must be the most detailed one?

in other words, in one of the languages of wikipedia, the viewpoints(majority, minority) of people speaking that language must be presented, or the viewpoints of all the people of the world?

I have asked this question at many pages (New_contributors'_help_page, talk:Neutral_point_of_view, talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias,...), but I haven't got a good answer.

Plz Answer me on my alk page. Thx answering :-)--Seraj 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis
Hi,

My first deletion was per the DRV consensus of 18 July; the second was a G4 on account of that consensus. JzG's vote at the current DRV review explains the situation well. We have a nice little article with verifiable primary sources (the census, the newspaper, the diary, etc.) and unverifiable secondary sources (local histories not widely distributed.) So, it fairly clear the lady existed, but we have no verifiable proof of her notability -- hence the consensus. Also at the new DRV now-ongoing, Phr makes a suggestion I made to Wjhonson that I made yesterday myself: this needs to be published in a journal first, where it can be peer-reviewed, and then it will be fit for Wikipedia. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I came to the same conclusion after researching this a bit. I will try and explain Wjohnson about this.  Note that the issue is not about the lack of a peer-reviewed journal, the issue, IMO, is the lack of any secondary sources to attest to her notability. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I've been trying to explain this to him for the last day and a half, so I hope you have better luck! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But she *does* appear in secondary sources. I've already explained that many times now.  And the secondary sources (local history) *are* verifiable.  The WP:V page does not say that a local resource, hard-to-find, obscure, rare, or any other type of source is unverifiable.  In fact it specifically says that its "possible" and that's the only criteria. Wjhonson 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And the other thing you're saying is we cannot have a biography on say "Denise Denton" the ex-chancellor of UC Santa Cruz. She has no source that is a "peer-reviewed journal" go look. Wjhonson 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On peer-reviewed here is what WP:V says "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." However biographies are not "academic" subjects, and I think you'll find a vanishingly small number are peer-reviewed.  The biography of Kittie has been published three times.  I'm just not seeing how a newspaper is not WP:V and WP:RS.  Can you explain that? Thanks. Wjhonson 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the secondary sources? Please list them. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already mentioned the newspaper the Snohomish Tribune and also another local historian sent me another article recently from the Everett Herald. Xoloz said that newspapers are primary, which led to a posting to WP:RS iirc where they said, no, only if they were an eye-witness, and in this case that wasn't true.  The reporters were not eye-witnesses to the events they reported, they collected various things together and edited a story about her.  So would that source pass muster? Wjhonson 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about notability, then? Many people have articles written about them in newspapers but are hardly notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. What are the key points about this person that makes her notable? I would suggest we pursue this as an issue of notability. If the person is not notable, the discusssion about primary or secondardy sources is moot. If the person is notable. we can then look at the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. Several reason for her notability. One she is a diarist whose diaries have survived for 50 or more years, that alone is an exceptional situation. Perhaps one out of every one hundred thousand people can make that claim. Two her diaries are being transcribed on wikisource. Again, a notable fact which demands an explanation of exactly *who* she was. Imagine reading an interesting book and then finding nothing exists on the author. That is notable, its rare, its unique, its unusual. All fall under notability. Three, her diaries present, one of the, if not the, sole surviving *narrative* source for many newsworthy events in the communities in which she lived.

Of these first she saw the founding of Tarkio, she witnessed it, she relates details, that we already knew, but she is a newsworthy person in those events. Second, she was an early pioneer to Spokane when there were only 500 people there. Again, the events she relates, we already know, but the manner in which she relates them she is involved in newsworthy events, and she adds some fine details that are worthy of understanding. Third, she is perhaps the only narrative source to discuss the town of Ellis. We know Ellis existed, from other secondary published sources, and we know who lived there. But her source backs up those claims and adds interesting quotes. Fourth, she is perhaps the only narrative source to discuss Deskins Sawmill. We already knew this was the prior name for Prospect, Oregon, but her source again backs up those claims, adds quotable remarks, and discusses her position in those newsworthy events. Fifth, she is the sole narrative source for events in early Clearview. We know about the events, and actors, from other secondary sources, but her narrative weaves together events in relation to each other and herself in the middle of those newsworthy events.

Again, the diary is not the source for any of these things. It, as is permissible under Primary and Secondary Sources backs-up those secondary sources. I am perfectly content to post an article using ONLY Secondary sources, provided my antagonists can get over their petty complaint that they don't want to sit and spin microfilm reels Wjhonson 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see... I am still concerned about notability as it pertains to having a full article about her. I would suggest the following approach:
 * Add info about her diaries and what she wrote in the articles about Ellis, Kansas, Prospect, Oregon, and Clearview, Washington;
 * Add some basic biographical info to Wikisource's page on K M Ellis;
 * Add cross-wiki links to from Ellis, Kansas, Prospect, Oregon, and other cities to the Wiksource articles, if pertinent.


 * Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See my edit at Wikisource ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments are appreciated. Is notability then grounds for deletion and protection?  This page is protected, does that seem like a reasonable thing to do, in this situation? Wjhonson 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The protection is there to avoid persistent re-creation of an article that was agreed upon to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You know Jossi that there are people able to game the system. A Review done in the middle of the night and concluded within a few hours shouldn't be the basis for all future judgement. If you look back at the original AfD you will see that several people voted to keep including an admin. You'd have to assume that admin had no concept of the situation to state that it was agreed upon. There wasn't an agreement there, it was split. That AfD was open for some time. Now look at the time stamps in the review, check my user page to see if I was informed about it. Not that that's necessary, but just imagine if its remotely possible that someone tried to manipulate the closer. Couldn't it be possible? If you look at the opening statements, its framed as propaganda designed to get the exact response it got. That's not really an unbiased review, don't you think? And is it normal to open and close a review within a few hours? Is it also normal for the same people who were voting against my review to be following around my edits on *unrelated*, *obscure* pages as well? Wjhonson 21:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a concern about wikistalking, or to complain about admin behavior, place a request at WP:ANI. As for the article itself, even if the process was not 100% kosher, I would argue based on the little research I have done, that it has little or no chance to survive the scrutinity of the community as it pertains to notability. I would suggest you take the approach outlined above, and move on to edit other articles. That will do wonders to your mood :). ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
Who are you to decide what I can write on the talk page of a subject? Do you own wikipedia? And where have you placed these "pointers?" 81.129.189.142 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)DB


 * You may have edited under a different IP address. I have re-added these pointers to the currenty IP address' talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Criticism of Hugo Chávez
Your suggestion should help us out -- thanks! Sandy 16:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Naturally I shall not be breaching 3RR as I never have done. Will you be similarly pointing out to SlimVirgin that an editoral dispute is not vandalism, particularly when I have recorded my view, in advance, on the talk page (oh, and check my user contributions to see the work I do on WP and fighting vandalism)? BlueValour 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a friendly warning so that your don't make the mistake of reverting for a 4th time. The fact that you fight vandalism is of no consequence as it pertains to editwarring. The WP:3RR rule is there for all of us, regardless if you announce it or not in the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that; I appreciate the warning and will not breach 3RR. If you check the Langley talk page and my talk page you will find that I have, wrongly, been accused of vandalism. Further, I feel threatened and intimitated by what SV put on my talk page. Is this a normal way of resolving disputes and encouraging committed new editors? BlueValour 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you make peace before it escalates and animosity develops between you and other editors. Make peace, and do not editwar. You could say "I can see that what I have done may be construed as vandalism, but it was an honest attempt to make the article better. I loook forward to working with you in the future to improve this and other articles." ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done :) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yoism
I see you moved the Yoism material to the Yoism talk page. One note: In case you tried to follow it, the link I provided to the old Yoism article was incorrect. This is the corrected link. Kriegman 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These discussions are better held at the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems I unwittingly wandered into a bigger affair than I intended to. After you moved Open source religion to Yoism, a user tagged the page for speedy deletion as a repost. I deleted the article as such without a thorough check of the history or posting to your and User:Kriegman's talk pages, which was a mistake. After reading some of your comments and interacting with Kriegman on my own talk page, I think I've got things to how they should be — but you may want to double check. I also listed Yoism on deletion review, since it seems that it may be time to revisit the reasoning behind the AfD. Your input would, of course, be appreciated.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 09:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Published
Hello Jossi, I wish to understand your position about including a definition of "Publish" or "Published" on the WP:RS guideline. Terryeo 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Jossi, I think a misunderstanding happens at NPOV when NPOV talks about presenting published information. If it is made clear what published information is, that would provide a minimum threshold which would exclude many fringe informations which are not published, and therefore, could not be included.  In the articles I'm working in, maybe as much as 10 % of the discussion involves information which has never been published and that would save us editors that much time.  The other half of the horseshoe is that WP:RS has a number of editors hammering away at a definition and that illustrates that editors don't understand the term in the same way.  I'm interested in clear definitions of the basic ideas, "published", "reliable", "verifiable" and so on.  "Verifiable" is defined pretty well (my opinion) but I often see editors use that threshold of inclusion when the earlier threshold "published" has not yet been met and it results in a confusion, as you can imagine.  The editor who has a verifiable, unpublished document in his hand, which few if any other people have access to, which he quotes from, is a powerful force to reckon with. Terryeo 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue, Terryeo, is that "published" needs to be suffixed by " by a reliable source". There is no point in trying to describe what "published" means, outside of the context of reliables sources, and verifiability. When we say "published by a reliable source that can be verified", we have all the definition we need. It does not matter where, why and how it was published: whatever it is, it needs to be such by a reliable source and verifiably so. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the logic you state, Jossi.


 * User:Fahrenheit451 proposes that A published, verifiable source would include a transcript which he has in his possession. The transcript is specifically not published by the source he personally got it from.  The source specifically states, publically, in a published book, the particular transcript which he posseses has never been published.  F451's use of the word "published" (so he states) is that it was "published to a public" (him, and perhaps several hundred others who have been similarly educated).  Further, there is a complex series of courses which can be purchased which results in a person viewing that transcript, thus, to some small degree, his possessed transcript is verifiable  editing difference.
 * The intent of the word "publish" (dictionarys say) is to present to the broad, general public. The intent of WP:NPOV is, I believe, that we editors create articles with published to the broad, general public, information.  If we will have a definition of the word "publish" then it will prevent difficulties and provide a foundation for the additional thresholds which an information must meet, to be included in Wikipedia articles.  The threshold of verifiability (of published information) is a logical next step.  The threshold, when an information is used as a secondary source, of publication being by a reliable source follows a logical sequence.  My intent is a logical, step by step structure.  Editing difficulties can then point to where an information fails, or succeeds, in meeting Wikipedia standards. Terryeo 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know about that case you refer to, but a trascript that was never published by a reliable source is not usable as it does not meet WP:V, and WP:RS. As I have said before, if you abide by WP:V and WP:NOR and well as by WP:RS, you do not need to define "published". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What you have said is true in all the situations that I know of. But it does not address the actual issue which WP:NPOV presents, that issue being that editors contribute published information and do not contribute unpublished information.  If editors will understand that only published information may be included, it will save editors a good deal of discussion, "published" is the base, bottom and foundation of any encyclopedia.  NPOV requires that all of the information on here has been published.  Why must we ignore this very obvious threshold of inclusion and deal with proposed inclusions by talking about whether the information can be verified ? Terryeo 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion is very unambiguos: "Published by a reliable source that can be verified". Show me an example in which an editor is attempring to bypass that policy. I do not see how that will be possible. Either a viewpoint was published by a reliable source, and that can be verified, or not. Is there a gray area I am missing? ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are examples of the grey area, of information which has been created by a reliable source for private distribution and then distributed broadly to private individuals. This discussion happened because an editor has the document in his hand which has been reliably reproduced and distributed. While never published, a series of educational courses exists whereby a person could verify the information in that editor's hand. Fahrenheit451's citation almost made it, he couldn't quite convince Really Snoopy it was verifiable because the educational runway was too long. If the educationl runway were, say 2 weeks, his citation might reach concensus. But Really Snoopy was not present in another example, which is cited in an article. Those are unpublished, privately mailed information. That discussion is; Those are still cited, even after a lot of discussion. Those citations appear; here (references [5] and [6]). Stated briefly, anti-Scientology editors frequently use unpublished, but privately distributed information while pro-Scientology editors use broadly published information. It happens because some editors understand "publish" to mean, "published to a public" (distributed to any audience) instead of "published to the public" (distributed to the broad, general public without regard to who receives it). One editors statement to me is; ''I am clear on the term "published" Terry. I see no sense in our circular debate on the wikipedia policy of published versus your idea of "published to the public".''  I propose a way to handle this grey area here. Terryeo 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The method you are supporting and which has worked for a long while is a good method. But it requires editors to discuss whether an information fulfills "verifiable". The problem I encounter in the articles I work on (Scientology) is that the Scientology publications are a huge quantity of works. Published information which editors LOVE to cite are are small handful of works. So, what do the editors do? They cite unpublished information at every opportunity. The unpublished information is put intact and whole (they say) on personal websites, then convenience links are made to those personal website pages. Because of the quantity of editors who prefer that point of view, it is very difficult to arrive at "that isn't a reliable source" or "that doesn't satisfy WP:V". But, if a clear statement were made that only published (to the broad, general public) were made, then the quality of the articles would improve (in the Scientology area) because higher quality sources would have to be used. Terryeo 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You will have to follow dispute resolution in these cases. Defining "published" will not help here. Policy is very clear as it is. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is quite simple, realy: material needs to pass the verifiablity test. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is right and I agree. It has to pass the verifiability test.  What I am proposing is to save a lot of discussing so we do not have to arrive at editor concensus about every piece of unpublished, but privately distributed information.  Unpublished, but privately distributed information does not pass the verifiability test.  But, if we make it clear that unpublished, privately distributed information should not even be included in the first place, we will have saved ourselves a good deal of discussion.  That is the reason I propose to slightly expand "publish" to state "published to the general public". Terryeo 14:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: List of charismatic leaders
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of charismatic leaders, has been listed at Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.--Konstable 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Kickstart70  (talk) on  Requests for Checkuser and  Administrator's Notice Board. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <B> ( desk / AMA ) </B> 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm not sure we've met. I'm not familiar with the mechanism of AMA, but I'd like to ask that the request be expedited, if possible. From the point of view of the checkusers, this action signals that incivility against the checkusers is permissible. We can't stomach that so we've shutdown WP:RFCU until the matter is settled. Given that, there's a definite need for this intervention to be handled as swiftly as possible without compromising the process itself. Thanks for you consideration, Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Jossi/AMA_Kickstart70 ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)