User talk:Jossi/archive6

Application firewall (copyright issue)
I checked the link and after some digging around discovered that the page that the article is disputed to have taken the content from actually has taken the content from wikipedia itself. No copyright violations. See Talk:Application firewall Harryboyles 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article, but in needs serious cleanup. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You owe me an apology
You owe me an apology. While reading the article on Israel, I found the following sentence:

The Irgun retaliated with attacks on Arab civilians.

As a reader, I found this sentence frustrating and jarring, since it introduced a term, "Irgun," that was unfamiliar to me and that could be fairly expected RfMto be unfamiliar to many. So I looked up "Irgun" in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article described Irgun as a militant Zionist group. So I added an appositive to the sentence which, I think most would agree, speeds a reader's understanding. My revised sentence read:

The Irgun, a militant Zionist group, retaliated with attacks on Arab civilians.

That's an edit of which any journalism teacher would be proud. But you undid my change and sent me the following robotic-toned note:

Thanks for experimenting with the page Israel on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I was not conducting a test. If you were attempting, in a diplomatic way, to accuse me of vandalism, you are wrong. I would appreciate it if you would admit your mistake. If your edit was generated through some automatic process you have set up -- indeed, the generic tone of your note suggests no human read or considered the edit -- then you should stop using such a process. Respectfully, I suggest you should learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

What point is there in trying to make an article better if a reader is going to get brushed off by someone who apparently does not bother to consider the edit. Wikipedia is built upon the strength of small, but carefully considered contributions, such as mine. Your thoughtless machete work chills the attempts of readers to make Wikipedia ever better and is antithetical to the core values of the Wikipedia project.

By the way, I have absolutely no ax to grind about Israel. I know nothing about Irgun that I did not read on Wikipedia. If the phrase "militant Zionist group" is neutral enough for the "Irgun" entry, I assumed, I think fairly, that it would be neutral enough for the "Israel" article. If the phrase is inaccurate, I regret the error. But you apparently do not take issue with the accuracy of the phrase.

I await your apology or explanation.

24.126.28.58 05:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that below the message about your edit, I placed some pointers for you to follow and become more aware of how Wikipedia works. For your information, the article on Israel is vandalized many times a day, mostly by a anonymous users (those editing without a user name, like you did), so the burden for providing sources for additions to this article is more onerous than in other articles. While your edit may have been 100% correct, there is no way for anyone to know if this was a well researched contribution, or an unsubstantiated opinion. My apologies in not explaining in detail my reasons, but sometimes when fighting vandalism of Wikipedia, it is hard to give each user a detailed account for the reasons upon which their contributions are deleted. You can go back to the article and add that sentence., but this time add a short line at Talk:Israel explaining your reasoning. Happy editing!&asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As you have become so familiar with the Wikipedia project and its policies with less than 20 edits, I would suggest that you get a username. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage protection
Hi, I noticed that your userpage is protected, and has no recent vandalism. Protection policy says to avoid leaving these protected unneccessarily. Please leave any replies on my talk page. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 02:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in Requests for comment/Comandante. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Well... it seems like trying to cleanup several lists has taken over most of my attention of late. So many dangers, so little time. However, there is at least one other thing that I'm trying to watch, that I'm writing to see if I can tempt your interest in. Short story: I decided to try to get the quality of Ward Churchill up to some better standards. Churchill is a controversial figure, much daemonized by the right-wing USAian press, so he attracts a lot of drive-by POV mongers and vandals. Actually one really aggressive one managed to get himself blocked for 60 days (it followed some other RfAr decision stuff though... from before I ever edited Churchill or heard of the editor).

There's another editor, User:Pokey5945 who is pretty much a single-issue editors. That is, the large majority of his edits (and all his initial month or so) were on Churchill's page. He started out with a definite anti-Churchill perspective, but mostly kept edits relatively factual, or at least allowed editing (mostly by me... there aren't a lot of people working on it) to get more NPOV tone. Unfortunately, he's become increasingly aggressive in trying to push an editorializing agenda with time. Actually, I refactored the page just yesterday to put about half the material in Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations), per length concerns and some previous discussion on the talk page (and a bit of WP:BOLD on my part); so today's problems are mostly on that child article.

Anyway, he got a 3RR warning in the past for some POV stuff he repeatedly put in (but just a warning from admin User:MONGO, as Pokey5945's first infraction, and assuming lack of knowledge on rules). Tonight's effort is Pokey5945's repeated blanking of some counter-balancing material by a scholar named Tinker (who basically defends Churchill and criticizes a guy named Brown who attacks Churchill). Pokey5945 hasn't yet 3RR'd on this one, but I'd like to "cut it off at the pass"). I'm thinking that maybe a word from someone other than me would have a tempering effect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would take a look, time permitting. I would also suggest you read the proposed guideline Biographies of living people (and in particular the section about critics and detractors), that I have been working on, for some ideas. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 12:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome, Jossi. I have edited already under a pseudonym but don't feel that I want to continue that. As you once said, it detracts somewhat from credibility. Errol Vieth 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, Errol. Happy editing. Jossi 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about, and why am I on parole?
Jossi, you wrote a bizarre message to me a few days ago.


 * You have been blocked for 48 hrs and the 12 month period reset for breaking your parole as stated by the Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies, as it pertains to personal attacks parole, and revert limitations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is "Huh?" Who are you, and what are you talking about? As far as I knew, there has been no process going on in regards to me, none at all. (Or, if there is, this has bveen kept an absolite secret from me.) You obviously have confused me with someone else. I have not even been on Wikipedia, except in the most minor fashion, for months. For instance, today I made a handful of edits, and that's been the total extent of my contributions for a month! Is someone else using my account? Frankly, I have absolutely no idea of what you guys are talking about!

Jossi, it deeply concerns me that the Arbcom is making cases against people in secret, without letting them even know that a process is going on. That itself is a violation of Arbcom policy, and could lead to proceedings against those people who violated the Arbcom rules!

It is especially puzzling that I was banned and put on parole without being given any reason, without being notified, and with all the reasons and discussions kept secret, and during a time when I essentially had almost zero editing on Wikipedia. I have never seen such a thing. Please get back to me immediately and tell me just what is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs) &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me check and I will get back to you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This was related to Requests for arbitration/RK 2, and a request placed by at the Administrators noticeboard to which I responded. Please read Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58. If you have any further queries, please address these to the ArbCom. Thanks. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel edit
Hi. just out of curiosity. Why did you remove this from the "israel" page: However, under Israeli law non-Jews are viewed differently than Jewish citizens, and are subject to different legal treatment as well as diminished access to educational, employment and housing opportunities. Seems quite accurate to me, though I didn't write it myself. Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertn (talk • contribs)


 * Please read WP:CITE. I have also placed some pointers on your user page that you may want to follow to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Happy editing. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi I would be glad to listen to specific feedback on the articles' talk pages. I am still getting acquainted with Wikipedia so no doubt I make a few mistakes now and then.  To me there needs to be some standard against which to separate fact from fiction here.  I recently read Greetings from Idiot America ESQUIRE Mag 11/05 which outlined all the ridiculous statements the mainstream press makes about religion, intelligent design and politics from a logical point of view.  Is there thought to Wikipedia or is it who shouts the loudest with the mostest wins?  To me consensus with no sound thought is absurd.  Just because I or other people state it doesn't mean it is credible.   How do we test thought here?   And how do we balance the gangs' opinions with the 'ones' thought here.  Just because a whole gang says that 'pigs can fly doesn't mean that pigs can fly.'

no email 16 jan 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.95.172 (talk • contribs)
 * You question is one often asked by new contributors such as you. I would kindly suggest you read Five pillars, to orient yourself and find answers to your questions. Believe me when I say that you are not the first one to ask these. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New AMA poll
Please have a look at the proposed election parameters under the section entitled An election proposal... and cast a ballot. Wally 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

One vote please
May I ask that you combine your comments, and reduce to a single vote in the Aetherometry AfD.

Also, please consider the implied responsibility you will incur to maintain NPOV of the article should you choose to keep it. TTLightningRod 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I will delete one of the votes. Sorry. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Innocent mistake I'm sure. Additional ramble: I have voted to delete it, not because I disagree with your desire to have a WIkipedia reference on the material, no matter its scientific valididty or not.  But rather because I can admit that I am baffled as to how to maintain NPOV in the article against the whirlwind climate of Wikipedia.  The material is so outside the mainstream, that that simple fact is used as the predominant argument for assuring the casual reader of its unscientific merits.  Ironically, a most unscientific argument, to be sure. I simply want to remind you of the up hill climb in front of you. TTLightningRod 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Question forom Janusz Karpinski
Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I am writing to you because you voted "keep" in AfD for aetherometry entry. The present situation is that by Wikipedia standards there is no reputable secondary literature at all about aetherometry. The minority view is contained only in primary sources, which do not even fulfill Wikipedia standards for scientific references, and there are no other publications, so there is no majority view. "Majority view" here does not mean view of majority of Wikipedia administrators, it means published and generally accepted view of outside scientific community. There is nothing like this for aetherometry. As result, nothing in entry can be verified or referenced, it is all interpretation and opinion. This is not how encyclopedia should work, and is against Wikipedia policy. Since you said that entry should be kept, you must have idea how entry can start to provide verifiable encyclopedic information when there are no existing secondary sources. How can this problem be solved? I think you cannot just say "keep" and leave to others dealing with this problem, which to me seems completely not solvable. Please, describe what your solution is, and how you will personally help make aetherometry entry honest, reputable and verifiable. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a way to resolve this, if we apply the guidelines available to us. The article can remain as a short article that presents the facts along the lines of what you have said above. Three or four paragraphs could suffice, that is if the pro aetherometry editors accept these terms. It aint' gonna be easy, but it is doable. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am not pro aetherometry editor, but if I was, I think I would agree to short entry with not misinforming content. But what will you do about people who several times a day insert own opinions, such as "pseudoscience" category, which are not supported by any references, and say it is majority viewpoint because it is opinion of "consensus" of Wikipedia editors. If entry is kept, how will you stop such disreputable activity, which pretends to be scientific point of view and teaches public that bias of majority is same as science? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We hvae WP:3RR as well as WP:SEMI to deal with these issues. And if disputes get too hectic, we also have WP:PROTECT &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask... jossi: When (approximate date) was the first time you either read the article and talk page, or had it brought to your attention?  In all civility and respect, I would really like your frank response to this direct question. More importantly, have you read the history, not just the current Article page and Talk Archives, but the full talk "history" to include deleted material?  (I can certainly understand if you haven't read it all.  I've made estimates that it contains more than a half a million words, conservatively).


 * The reason I ask these somewhat odd sounding questions, is that these solutions for this article, particularly the ones you've just cited, have come up repeatedly. Are you familiar with just a few of the problems actually demonstrated in the article specifically in respect to these measures?  Particularly the last one, as the page was fully locked twice, and commented on by the Admin, with the intention to hold it with the specific word pseudo-science as its category, without reference.TTLightningRod 02:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns and your passion. The way I look at it, if this article cannot achieve stability with currently establihed principles, guidelines and dispute processes, the whole Wikipedia project is in jeopardy. My assessment is that now that the article is in the watch list of many editors, it will be much easier to contain. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your palaver on the project in jeopardy, just makes me smile. It is the ambiguity of your chosen word contain, combined with sidestepping a direct question only needing a simple answer, kind of tells me all I need to know. Come on... you know I have a sense of humor...  we can share this good laugh together. Take care, and best of luck with the project. TTLightningRod 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my butting in, but the Aetherometry article has been on many editors' watch lists for more than six months now.  The editors who have it on their watch lists consider it their natural "duty" to guard and protect the article from any "vandalism" that contradicts their bias against what they call "wacko" science.  In particular, it is precisely because the article is on their watch lists that it gets re-categorized as "pseudoscience" or "pseudophysics" several times a day, in the name of "consensus" - without any external sources to justify the categorization.   This is precisely what these editors regard as "containment".  And I agree with Janusz: to anybody concerned with the quality of Wikipedia, this should be simply appalling.    I think Janusz is right: if there is no acceptable literature about a topic, and therefore everybody can, under the guise of "containing vandalism", come over and fill this void with biased misinformation, then the topic is not ready for Wikipedia.  It does damage to the topic, damage to the people who - day in and day out -have to wage futile and unproductive battles about it, and damage to Wikipedia and its readers.  You may be able, with the principles you have, to achieve stability with a lot of articles, but not with those for which there are absolutely no acceptable secondary sources.   There is just no way to include those in an encyclopedia.   That is my very strong belief, after half a year of watching futile, draining, imbecile battles.   I didn't clearly understand the simple causes of the problem until Janusz articulated them.  FrankZappo 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I might be going out on a real shaky limb here FrankZappo, but I don't mind, let me do it for you.... I think jossi knows all this, already. TTLightningRod 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am starting to regret to have made that vote. If each of my AfD votes get this kind of attention .... what will I do? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all good, jossi. Your stress thermometer indicates "cool"....  I imagine you won't get this kind of attention on most AfDs...  but this one's a sticky wicket.  Wikipedia is just not capable of handling a situation like this on the grounds it has set up right now.  Reference and verification is a great and necessary thing...  but a tremendous amount of good people's time is being blown debating which list to choose from, and simply arguing over who's list is more or less valid.  If you're truly interested in helping to untangle such a thing, begin by cutting Aeth loose (for now), investigate the dynamics of, and build good articles on, "The Current State of Peer-Review and Citation Reference Data Banks, Worldwide".....    you solve that one, and then the article quality in the scientific fields will go all together, up with the tide.  Aetherometry and Big Bang types have better things to do right now instead of working this out for Wikipedia. Pass it on, and please reconsider your vote.  TTLightningRod 06:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary_philosophers
Please vote here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 70.248.125.230
Hi, Jossi. Uh, what happen? See also 70.248.125.230's contributions. It doesn't look like much in the way of vandalism after my unblock, and is self-corrected. But maybe you blocked because the user is doing bad things under a name account...? Compare also my conversations with the anon on his talkpage and mine. Bishonen | talk 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Anon user was adding a nomination for RfA again and again, probably its own. After seeing the number oif warnings and previous blocks on his talk page, I decided to block for a short time. Is he a potentially good contributor? we shall see when he/she comes back. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon's claim is that it's not his talkpage, but that he was hit by collateral damage. I asked about the IP on IRC and was told it wasn't inherently unlikely, so I assumed good faith. As you say, we shall see. I don't actually see any again and again in the contribs. There are only three edits altogether after my unblock: he thanks me on my page; adds the RFA nomination; and removes the RFA nomination. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
 * OK. Let's unblock and keep an eye. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE
Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. --Fastfission 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like an excellent idea. I will get involved, but In exchange, I would invite you to look into another proposed guideline that I have been working on: WP:LIST. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the nice note. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong. I'd rather prove everyone right. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Updating list of protected pages
Hi, I noticed that you protected the page Save our State. In future, would you please put list any pages protected on Wikipedia:Protected_page. Thanks. novacatz 08:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:195.93.21.39
You have had to do it before, you might have to do it again. (Is it an AOL proxy?) This IP is repeatedly making factual errors and POV edits to Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. Could you have a look at the history, please? --Concrete Cowboy 13:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Medak pocket
This message is regarding the page Operation Medak pocket. My corrections are made after looking at a official documens of a Croatian, Serbian and Canadian side. Why do you call it vandalism? --Ceha 3:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have placed some pointers in your talk page. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointers, a lot of my corrections were already mentioned at the operation medak pocket (altough that was done in croatian and maybe in some odd style, I didn't do it:) All of the changes I have maid are correct (at least from by the existing documents) and it is important that the pages of wikipedia contain truth. I'll look the rules about changing pages, thanks:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs)


 * Please also note that your spelling and grammar are quite problematic, so please go slow and allow other users to correct your spelling. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

last warning
Should I let someone know if I a revert a vandal with last warning, like 60.228.75.31 ?

Thanks,

Please respond on my talk page. Mikereichold 09:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * THANKSMikereichold 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested template
Hi, I'm trying to clean up the backlog on the requested templates page and wanted to ask you about Requested templates. I think what you are looking for may be covered by the lists of similar templates at Template:Not verified and Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. Let me know if there are specific conditions/templates not included there which you would like created. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CBDunkerson. What I was looking is for a template that encapsulates the basic content principles of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V. What is happening is that some articles achieve NPOV but are not verifiable, or are verifiable but are not NPOV, or that are NPOV but are also original research. So what I was looking for is a template that says something along the lines of:


 * "This article does not comply with the content policies of Wikipedia. For an article to be compliant, it needs to be written from a neutral point of view, the material needs to be verifiable, and it cannot include original research. These three priciples work together and are required to be present."

&asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Take a look at noncompliant and let me know if you want to adjust anything. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 12:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting it started. I made some cosmetic changes and some small edit to the text. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this template is terrible. It doesn't say anything specific, just that at least one out of four (fairly broad) things is wrong. There are already templates for accuracy dissputes, NPOV, both (totallydisputed), OR, and unverified claims. Do you suppose you could please replace this one with templates for the specific other issues which you want to cover (presumably WP:NOT items) instead? I fear this one will cause more problems than it solves. --James S. 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James, this template addressed a very specific issue that is to be compliant all four content policies apply. I have seen in many instances that WP:NPOV is used to sacrifice WP:V, or that article may comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V but fail on WP:NOT. SO all this template is doing is to assert that you need to comply with all four. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Swedenman
Hi! I noticed that you have given user:Swedenman a 3RR warning. I just wanted you to know that Swedenman is identical with Filipman on the Swedish wiki. He has been blocked 6 times for edit wars, rabid POV and minor abuse of other wikipedians, see. Probert 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea.... You will need to place a Requests for CheckUser &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please change your behavior?
Jossi, you accused me of violating the Wikipedia policies without giving concrete examples. I think that you have broken policies more than I lately (if I broke any at all). You broke policies in the articles, charismatic authority and Prem Rawat, by deleting notable important contents that is removing the word "unpredictable" and the story by Mishler about the succession. Can you please behave again as a responsible Wikipedian again? Thanks. Andries 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection
You protected Save Our State, and that gave editor the time to work on a compromise draft. I think we can unprotect it now. Would you do the honors? Thanks, -Will Beback 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pae move from Laozi to Lao-Tsu
There was no consensus for that move. Thirteen editors wanted to move, while seven opposed. And in any case, voting is not the way Wikipedia works. Read WP:NOT &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jossi. I have, of course, seen the page you cite. I would recommend you also see requested moves, on which 60% is the commonly accepted margin for moving a page. "Not a democracy" does not mean that no change may ever be made unless there is complete agreement. Regards. Jonathunder 18:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Use of double standards by you
Jossi, I think that you are missing the point with regards to your rhetorical questions on my user page about witness accounts. What I basically mean to say is that the same standards of reputable sources and verifiability should apply for the inclusion of both apologist and critical material and this is something you do not seem to understand. In the article Prem Rawat you do not follow this principle and I think you are putting much higher standards for critical material than for apologist material. Andries 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you accuse a fellow editor of "double standards" you should pay attention to the behavior you are exhibiting in this regard at Sathya Sai Baba. Enough said. As for the reputability of a source, your seem not to understand a very basic point: that a story related by a person about events that he did not witness, may be OK to be included in an article in Wikipedia, when there are no other sources available. But when new material is made available from witness accounts of named persons, there is no reason any longer to use the hearsay material as a source in an article, in particular when both acounts are not competing views but quite similar. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Jossi, one editor is pushing is non-notable homepage there. I tried to refer to mainstream media or scholarly articles there. Mishler provided different details than Bihari Singh (whose story does not fulfill verifiability in any way) and again there is every reason to assume that Mishler had inside knowledge. Andries 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the account was stand-alone, I would agree with you 100%. But there are plenty of scholarly sources that confirm the family's, Prem Rawat's and Mr. Sigh's accounts. That is why these are compliant with WP:V. Mishler's hearsay is not verifiable as no one refers to it but himself, 10 years after these events took place and not naming his sources. The only verifiable thing about Mishler's is that he was not there and that it is hearsay. Regarding the article you refer to, I prefer not to continue discussing it, because I my opinion of your behavior there I should keep to myself for now, otherwise it will get pretty nasty. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you fixing my revert error in User:Drini! As you can see, I was having a heck of a time reverting to the right version for some reason. At first it was a revert collision with User:Zzyzx11. I thought I had fixed it, but ended up reverting back to the wrong version a second time. I could have sworn I double-checked it too! Anyway, thanks again for pinch-hitting for me! (If you care to respond, please do so on my talk page.) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured out what happened! (I'm letting you know in case you ever see it again.)   I was using Lupin's popups script and I committed a fatal error -- I used the BACK button after I did the revert.   When I backed up to my original erroneous revert, the script did its normal background submit, thus resubmitting my original error and overwriting my fix.   This also explains why there are three entries in the history when I thought I only did two.  Man, that's embarassing.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems... things like this happens when fighting the hordes of vandals ... :) &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Iraq Invasion page
Josie, I don't think that blocking this page is going to get the job done that needs to be done on this article. Editor pookster has worked very hard to shorted it and summarize the material to conform to wiki policy. If he doesn't get his work done, it will never get done. I know that the subject is disputed and we are all trying to work it out. This process will never mover forward unless you give him/her a chance. Just my opinion.Dawgknot 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Revert wars never achieve anything. You need to work out a way out of the dispute (pun not intended) with editors involved. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for protecting that article from repeated deletion of whole blocks. pookster11 made false claims material were moved somewhere else, deleted the neutrality dispute tag and even discussion about it from talk page  as well as warning on his user page.  84.59.67.92 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the user wants his or her page to become a battleground. Once again user... list of numbers, if you have a problem with me my talk page is open. pookster11 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Open for your deletion of my warnings, that is? 84.59.67.92 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ramakrishna
Hey jossi, sorry that I never responded to your questions here...I just now saw them. It must have been the POV claims of Ramakrishna's greatness in the intro that led me to too-hastily revert the whole edit. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "This article deserves some TLC, do you have some time and the inclination to work on it? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfDs
Hey! I don't think there is any specific walkthrough on Wikipedia directed to closing AfDs. However, the procedure is quite simple. Scan the page for votes and make a tally. Remember to disregard votes with erroneous reasons and votes from very new and unregistered users. Also, take note of sockpuppets and "meatpuppets" to keep the voting fair. The result of the outcome is purely your decision. If there seems to be little or no consensus, either release the article from AfD or re-list the AfD on today's page, with a note that you have re-listed for a broader consensus. The former should only be used if you have a strong "common sense" opinion, or the article has already been re-listed many times.

If you are not re-listing, but closing the AfD, use the   and    tags to enclose the discussion in the AfD frame. Directly after the &#123;{afd top}} tag, place a space, and the result of the debate (bold), along with your signature. An example is displayed below:  speedy delete. ~

(discussion text)

The actual result of the code above is illustrated below: 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy delete. SYCTHOS talk 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(discussion text)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hope that helps! Good luck! SYCTHOS talk 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It helps a lot. Thanks for taking the time. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election
Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:V changes
Tell me what it is exactly you are concerned about, and what you'd like to happen (in email, if you feel it's more appropriate). Taking a look, I see Jguk having removed the discussion of non-English sources, but moved it to the guideline WP:RS. Unfortunately, Jguk has a long history of unilaterally rewriting policy pages, and then aggressively changing pages supported by his new definition of policy. The whole "style wars" was exactly this: he changed WP:STYLE (or some child page, I forget how it was all organized) to command editors to use "Holiness" and "Highness" in a "use-not-mention" way in articles, then aggressively warred over sticking that unencyclopedic stuff in the pope article, and a few kinds or queens and the like. I didn't really follow it, but apparently he did some similar stuff to try to stamp out the NPOV use of CE/BCE rather than the Christian-POV AD/BC (and changed dozens or hundreds of articles to reflect his unilateral "policy"). I wonder what this change might foreshadow.

So I definitely would approach such "refactoring" of the policy with great suspicion. All that said, it doesn't seem unreasonable on first blush to put the discussion of non-English sources in WP:RS, as long as readers of WP:V are prominently pointed in that direction with a sentence about the matter. But perhaps I could be convinced in a different direction around this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you David. I made compromise edit to keep a short summary on WP:V and the details ar WP:RS. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

24.94.114.251
has been blanking his own talk page recently, can you s-protect it? Thanks. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden ratio, again
Are you still interested in the Golden ratio article? If so, in my opinion, the Mathematical uses section could use an illustration of the golden ratio as the ratio of a pentagon's diagonal to its side. An illustration might also help the pentagram discussion in the Aesthetic uses section. Could you contribute (I'm helpless when it comes to graphics), or are your Admin duties keeping you too busy? I'm also curious why this article on such a specialized topic draws so much vandalism (this isn't Israel or Richard Wagner, after all). How are you doing, by the way? Finell (Talk) 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Finell. nice to hear from you again. I will surely help with these diagrams. Give me a few days. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Please take your time; there is no urgency. Finell (Talk) 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting my user talk
I'm not sure if it completely meets the guidelines... but then it is my own user talk page. What would you think of putting a semi-protection on it, as a friendly admin. I've been getting this deluge of annoying vandalism, always from IP addresses or brand new users. They may or may not be the same person as that Fight*free* family. The problem with the latest round, is it consists of, say, hundreds of copies of some image (perhaps with an insulting caption... generally something about Ward Churchill); and I have trouble even loading the diffs because the size of the page is too large.

All the people I actually want to talk to are experienced users (at least past the first few days of having an account), so no one would be inconvenienced with a legitimate purpose. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have sp your talk page, but it can only stay semiproteted for a short time only. I will unprotect in a day or so. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that's too bad. I'd rather it was there permanently... heck, I wish most pages had a semi-permanent semi-protection (at least anything with a history of vandalism or edit warring).  It's a step in a good direction; I wish it were a bigger step.  I'm all pro-anarchy and all, but a very mild probation period for users to "act nice" doesn't seem like a bad thing.  Obviously, if every page was semi-protected, a new user could never get started; but if there was a low threshhold for the "smell of contention" on an article, that would still leave 98% of pages available for a new editor to show her good behavior on. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments. I was preparing a response, but your help is very welcome. If you feel there is any way you could assist in winning the third party to support for the mediation, I would be appreciative of that as well ;-) --BostonMA 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I would not be the right person to convince the other party to accept your mediation, though. Good luck. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @

"List not empty"
What does that mean? -- Fyslee 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing AFDs
When you close AFDs, please put the above the heading, instead of below it. – ABCDe ✉ 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. will do. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)