User talk:Jossi/archive8

Question
Why did you call my fixing of vandalism an experiment? An activist for a political campaign has repeatedly edited Congressman Vito Fossella's page. I merely changed things back to a neutral point of view. I have no interest in the congressional race but I noticed frequent changes by someone who apparently is an advocate his his opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.192 (talk • contribs)


 * If you have content related issues, you can discuss these in the article's talk page. Deleting content without explaining reasons, is considered vandalism. I will take a look at the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
A quick note of thanks for having reverted vandalism of my user page earlier today! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any time. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness thanks
Jossi- Thank you for cleaning up the citations on the forgiveness page. I am still a bit new here. I am looking for a little artwork on forgiveness to add to the page. Perhaps under the artwork could be the quote: “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean.” Dag Hammarskjöld. It would seem that with you being an artist you would be the perfect person to talk to. Perhaps something like a child releasing a butterfly?

If you have any other suggestions as to the direction to take the page to make it even better, I am all ears. I have solicited input at the talk pages of religions and psychology with about a 40% success rate. I think this is an immensely important topic that cuts accross religious, spiritual and secular beliefs. Thanks again! --speet 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice article. Sure. I will endeavor in finding some suitable imagery. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 14:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that you will need to work hard at getting references and citations to support much of the content on the article. Otherwise it will surely be challenged at some point. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments. If I could ask one other favor. I tried to put in a book reference, but the preview didn't work. Here is the Amazon link to the book. I wanted to add it as a reference in the third paragraph at the end of the sentence that starts "As a gift to oneself". If you could give me an example on that one I can do the rest. Thanks --speet 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Jossi. I put some comments on the forgiveness talk page.--speet 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Greetings. From the description and use of Dethomas 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Jossi, just a quick thanks for the barnstar, it's always nice to get these little tokens of appreciation. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Missionaries of Charity
Jossi, I just wanted to let you know that the NPOV tag you inserted in Missionaries of Charity has been removed by Cbruno. I reverted his removal once, but he has gone back and reverted me again. Check out the articles history for his rediculous arguments. Not sure what you want to do about this, but I thought I would let you know. --Hetar 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not add that NOPV tag. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 11:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense, cosidering your edit summary: " 22:35, 11 March 2006 Jossi (section contains items that are attributed to "some critics" without stating who these are. NPOV tag added)" --Hetar 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Thanks

 * Any time. We may have our differences, but none when it comes to these kind of things. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Olmecs
Waiting on response to Olmecs page protection on version that includes BOTH parties versions as described. *I see that my updates were noted as disruptions and their revertions were not. These actions validate and have bias towrds their behaviour which is in violation of Wikipedia policy, yet I who have been strictly adhering to it and the only one thus far to offer a compromise, am also the one one to be penalized by being blocked from edits and banished to the "talk page".

Please advise as as I was under the impression that Administrators were to stay neutral, from your comments it seems that mine were ignored. I hope that this was only an oversight, and once again I repeat that I agree with having the page protected with BOTH parties views included, and agree that Administrators interception is necessary.

Kind Regards.

Name change
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I'm still over the limit, plus I'd have to find a third name because only new usernames are allowed, I don't know if they can merge two old acounts to one new one. I guess I should make so many edits. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling fix
Hi, Thanks for the spelling fix. I'm sure you have been following the discussions with SSS108 and Andries. Please feel free to give second opinions. (even to me!) -- BostonMA 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am currently reading the proposals in your user page. I like them quite a bit. Yes. I have been following on the mediation and learning a lot from what your activities (are you a mediator by profession?). Hope that Andries engages and addresses the issues. Arbitration will be bad for both parties, IMO. &asymp; jossi  &asymp;  t &bull;  @ 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm honored that you suggest that I am a mediator by profession. Actually no.  I am an instructor at a university, (and that's instructor not a professor, as I lack a PhD).  -- BostonMA 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the title, I am learning a lot just by watching. (OT: if you edit a lot, you may be interested in this User:Cacycle/Editor. Great tool, with search and replacce, full screen editing, real-time preview on your browser) &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness Image
Jossi- I got permission after the artist, Magdalene Chan, approved the license. I kept emails if needed. I am a lawyer (although not my field) and was quite careful and specific. Let me know if what I put on the image talk page was good enough. Thanks for the help--speet 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to add some text to that effect: "Uploaded with permission from the author, date". &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DONE! --speet 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked the only other administrator I recall adding to the page to opine on the "essay feel" belief you hold. Please see his response at the bottom of my talk page.  Jossi-  I got to say:  Can you give me one positive thing?  I have spent a lot of time on this and the majority of your feedback from you is attack.  What do you like????  Did I do something to anger you?  If I did, let me know so that we can get off on a better foot.  This is the forgiveness article.  If we decide to try it we may find that that decision fosters feelings of compassion.  :)  --speet 16:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am really sorry if you see my comments as "attacks". All my comments were made in the spirit of making the article better. The article itself is wonderful, but the lead is not. It include a lof of opinions some of which are not supported by reputable sources. I have added a link for you to read about what a lead should look like, mainly it should present a definition of the subject followed by a summary of the article itself. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Olmecs
Still awaiting a response, to the meassage I posted a few days back.

Regards.

Working with others
I read the section: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith."

You asked me to discuss matters before editing another's work. What is frusterating me is that you are not giveing me the same consideration. You are acting quickly and heavy handedly to impose your POV. I asked for patience, you just went ahead and did what you wanted. I would ask that your revert your change and work "with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." Please slow down and work with me, respect I have other obligations and conclude we cannot reach a consensus before just doing whatever fits your POV. I am offline until tommorw at the earliest--speet 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speet. Please note that I did not delete any text from the article! I just refactored it into different sections. I understood that you were busy and without time for addressing the concerns I raised, so I just decided to give it a go. Also note that I do not have a POV as it pertains to "Forgiveness" specifically. I argued that the lead was too heavy on non-mainstream views on how this term is defined and that it read more as an essay. I moved these assertions and POVs to their own section, shortened the lead and asked for other ediots to assist in completing the lead as per guidelines. I will not edit the article until Monday next week, to give you time to see if my edits worked or not, and to respond. Take care. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

biology
What's up with this? "(See Species: In biology, a species is the basic unit of biodiversity. In scientific classification, a species is assigned a two-part name in Latin.) " That's nonsense. Jim62sch 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read Species :) &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Olmecs
Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... This amazing. Still waiting a response. Perhaps the silence speaks volumes. Reading through your discussion page, I am now growing very concerned as to how a refusal to block one person for reversions by deciding his actions constituted a content dispute (even though this person had no sources), yet I sustained a block even though I submitted several sources and references in detail. You refused to block this person because you declared his actions as part of a content dispute. Yet I am still awaiting an explanation for my own block... I had communicated with a previous administrator who tried to block me, then removed the block, and then you decided to reverse this decision, without the courtesy of explanation to myself and still appear to be refusing to communicate. Once again, these are grave concerns that appear to be an abuse of administrative priviledges. The other party, that I am indeed in "content dispute" with, openly *declared that he had broken the same revert rule as I. I have to commend his honesty, as no administrator had decided to take this into consideration,  which therefore leaves me very concerned about your decision to only penalize me, and appear to resort to no further communication on the matter. I feel that I at least deserve an explanation, as after a review of the whole situation I can see no other reason apart from content and/or user bias. This does not comply with the policy that declares administrator neutrality when handling such matters as this. Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.81.80 (talk • contribs)


 * You were blocked for breaking the three revert rule. A notice was placed on your talk page to that effect. If you have any complaints about my role as an administrator, please place then at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and not here. Thank you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu
Hi, you are one of the couple of editors I was refering to here. Please join in if you have the time/inclination. TIA, --Gurubrahma 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding your message to me on my so-called "vandalism" -

The reason for removing was mentioned in the talk page and Pournami, who originally extended the quote had no problem with it. I see no reason why this should be considered vandalism. 129.186.232.42 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]

Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba may get deleted
Please think twice before you spend your time in improving it. Andries 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am just following up in your interest for asking references. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness Article
I made some proposed changes to the lead which are on the talk page and wanted to let you know for your input. I am not trying to stir anything up with my proposal on the lead, just trying to tighten things up and provide some future direction. I expanded the religion paragraph in one area and tightened it up in another. It could still use some style and citation help. I am trying to address everyone's concerns I saw on the talk page and my own. I am prepared to move forward without looking back. I understand if you wish a response, if so I will view it, consider it and again move forward. --speet 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on article names
I was hoping to get your opinion. A while back I refactored articles about Ward Churchill into several parts out of WP:SIZE. Anyway, another editor recently renamed the two siblings of the main bio. I think there was some sense to his change (eliminate parentheses), but I'm not sure the new form is mellifluous. Could you opine at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyvios
Well, I'm glad to see we're assuming good faith. Did anyone notify this chap on his talkpage concerning this matter...? If not, it should be carried out, as fixing these copyvios is his responsility, not just ours. However, from what you've said, you're going to go and start the task regardless. I deal in image tagging quite a bit; if you'd like me to assist in this tedious task, give me a shout on my talkpage, and I'll be glad to lend a had. -ZeroTalk 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 17:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FM
jossi, do you know where the appropriate place is to escalate my problem with Felonious? I refuse to encourage him through toleration. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Refactoring other people's comments from talk pages, is only encouraged when the personal attacks are disruptive and obvious. Even in these cases, only the text that is considered an attack can be deleted. I would argue that you can restore your comment and request from FM not to do that. Point him to Remove personal attacks &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Jossi! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ika.jpg
I've placed a hangon on this. You haven't provided information of what it's a copyvio of that I see? - brenneman  {L}  06:42, 23 March 2006
 * Image:Ika.jpg


 * Check . He has uploaded close to a hundred images with misleading license tags. I thought that I delete the speedy tag and replaced with a license required one. Check his talk page. We are in the process of cleaning up these images. &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to be inactive as of late. His last edit was on 04:35, March 21, 2006 (blanked his talkpage of a copyvio warning). If he uploads another image in this fashion or simply removes another comment, a block may be in order. -ZeroTalk 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He may have been active using his IP, removing the requests for sources and copyright from the images. I blocked that IP for vandlaism I warned the IP user &asymp; jossi  &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's just posted an lovely comment on his talkpage concerning this. WP:AGF is bone-dead, I'm afraid. -ZeroTalk 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lovely indeed. Ample proof that his intentions were anything but noble. We shall wait the customary seven days and proceed to delete all the copyvios one by one. We shall also keep an eye for sockpuppetry on these anthropology articles, just in case. 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for all the tedious work. I shall list them all on ifd shortly. -ZeroTalk 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

questionable image
You may want to check out Image:Canis dire.jpg - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Surely a copyvio job. I have placed a warning on user's talk. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message
Thanks for your recent comment about the Mishler transcript and the Prem Rawat article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.

-Scott P. 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent followup comment about the Mishler transcript and the Prem Rawat article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.


 * -Scott P. 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for your recent comment about the Mishler transcript and the Prem Rawat article. Another followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at my discussion page.


 * -Scott P. 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Jossi, yes, you have a good point. I assume you notified others, yes? Also, it is rather difficult to be WP:CIVIL when certain editors are being WP:DENSE, have little clue of WP:CON and amusingly use WP:NPOV to cover their POV edits. Jim62sch 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Help please
Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards --Realek 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody already reverted his edit. I placed a WP:3RR warning on his talk page &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not tribunal
I apologize for not having gotten around to working on that guideline yet. Some real-life stuff (I actually have to do work for pay, for example), and also some other WP distractions (dunno if you know Slavoj Zizek; but an editor went into personal attack mode over my attempt to reduce some unencyclopedic WP:OR-ish "critique" stuff there). I'll still try to get around to some verbal flare... but don't count on me finding the time and attention as a sure thing. All apologies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NP. If you need any help fending off personal attacks, let me know. Don't let these get under your skin... &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, maybe. I guess someone to act as an informal mediator would be good.  An editor User:Ramanpotential has been quite blustery in that, but not ultimately all that ill-intentioned.  As you know, I can come off as a bit condescending when insisting on an editing point... because, y'know, I'm an arrogant prick, in my heart of hearts :-).


 * But the editing point here at issue wasn't anything all that terrible: some editors (including one IP address whom Ramanpotential disclaimed being or knowing about, but then oddly backpedalled a bit to calling "a friend and colleague") have put rather undue emphasis on some rather trite criticisms of Zizek by rather minor academics. The criticisms are all verifiable, and I don't doubt the quotes or paraphrases are accurate, but they just aren't at all notable... there's an odd tendency is certain academic bios to dig up random critics in no particular pattern.  Criticism by "secret Santa".  And that's the case with the Zizek thing; a half dozen or so thinkers (who are nobody in particular) were recruited from the hundreds of people who have written something-or-another about Zizek, and presented with undue emphasis (I suspect those so chosen are either the critics themselves, or the critics have students who edit).


 * The personal attack thing was mostly this weird personalistic retort that claimed something I would never imagine disagreeing with: David Mertz isn't an important critic or commentator on Zizek (but with a few little derogatory turns of phrase about David Mertz/LotLE along the way).  I think maybe in Ramanpotential's mind it moved from my claim that (roughly): "Your professor/well-liked author/whatever ain't such hot shit to merit inclusion" to a perceived tit-for-tat of "Well, Mertz ain't such hot shit either!" But of course, I quite agree on the latter question.


 * I actually think I solved the problem. I spun off the unuly weighted critique stuff into a child article, so the bio can just be what a bio should be: about the academic him/herself.  Actually, not so much different as a principle from the Ward Churchill kerfuffle (but without any WP:SIZE motivation per se).  But still maybe a few soothing words from an uninvolved party might help chill things down (or it might not).  Otherwise, I think Ramanpotential will just bluster a bit more on my talk page, then it will blow over with an acceptably refactored article. Though it does all slightly relate to the "calls for justice" bit, as disagreements indeed seem to wind up with far too often. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When it comes to mediation, I think somebody who you don't obviously already have some form of relationship with would be more appropriate, don't you? No offense intended to User:Jossi but someone who's never heard of either of us is surely the way to go. In any case, a few points:


 * including one IP address whom Ramanpotential disclaimed being or knowing about, but then oddly backpedalled a bit to calling "a friend and colleague" - this is an outright lie. I never claimed that I didn't know the user, just that he wasn't me.


 * Thus far, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has been absolutely unable to point out how I have "attacked" him with reference to anything in WP:NPA. I'll more than willingly admit to being as much of an arrogant prick as he is (not a personal attack, but a reference to his above self-description), but that is a quite different thing to actually attacking someone. He has, however, maliciously accused me of sock puppetry and continues to do so in spite of the fact that I have provided him with my proper IP address.


 * Apparently he finds my ignorance of the workings of LANs so hilarious (I originally provided him with a local IP instead of a proper one - an offense apparently punishable by death) that he has taken to mocking it on his user page, something which comes, once again, far closer to a personal attack than anything I have said to him. Ramanpotential 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ramanpotential: My "relation" to David, is just that I know him to be an excellent editor of Wikipedia (although sometimes he gets in trouble, like we all do from time to time, in particular when editing articles that address subjects in which there is controversy. I have been there myself many at times). As for POVs, you cannot find two people whose POVs are so opposite, but that has not stopped us from asking each other for comments and opinions about disputes, policy and other issues. I will take a look and see if there is anything that I can offer, the first of which would be Stay cool, that is always useful regardless of circumstances. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, are you able to offer me a suggestion as to how I can get David to post an apology and retraction on my user page over the sock-puppet accusations? And to remove his reference to me on his user page, which manifestly constitutes a personal attack? I don't think either of these things are much to ask. Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 23:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What about just asking David, nicely, to refactor these comments out of his talk page as a show of good will, which I think David has plenty of? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have, repeatedly, and to no avail. And my problem is not with what's on his talk page, my problem is with what's on MY talk page, and what's on his main user page. Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can delete what is in your talk page... and I do not see anything in is main user page. Would you be so kind as to point what is the text you find objectionable in his user page? &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In his most recent edit he quotes me because he sees my lack of knowledge about LANs as a) funny, and b) evidence that I am engaging in sock puppetry. He has not removed it in spite of the fact that I have since provided him with my WAN IP (203.173.21.69), proving to the extent that I know possible that I am not the person who was posting from User:58.160.223.124.


 * And I don't think deleting the section from my own user page is good enough, because I believe I am entitled to an apology and a retraction over the sock puppet allegations. Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Block request
Could you please carry out your threat to block User talk:203.33.181.52 as you warned him you would? He vandalised list of golfers again yesterday, this time by adding a golfer born in 2006. Osomec 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Next time please list at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin Coaching
I think you should go and contact the first person on the queue of coaching requests by yourself so that the progress doesn't get stuck. So far I've contacted titoxd, the coordinator, but got no response. -- D e  ryc  k C.  16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Question Clarified
Hi Jossi, we may have been editing at the same time, so you may not have noticed that I clarified my question to you on the SSB talk page. --BostonMA 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi! While User:Titoxd is on a Wikibreak, he gave me permission to do some leg-work concerning Esperanza admin coaching. I noticed you tried to contact User:Friday to offer your services, but it doesn't appear as if he's replied. Would you mind if I assigned you User:Siva1979, who is first on the "unassigned" list? Thanks for your time! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Sure. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Get it pumped
Hi, I don't know if you were aware, but this page is currently an AfD. The consensus was strongly towards Delete, but I don't think it was heading towards Speedy Delete. Just FYI, Gwernol 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Will undelete. I thought it to be a speedy. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, personally I think it should be speedied :-) But I thought it best to alert you so we could go through the proper process. It looks like the end result will be the same. Best, Gwernol 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
If someone deletes your comment from their talk page and in the edit summary says some nasty things about you, is that a violation of the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks? --User:Lord_Chess


 * Users can delete anythng from their talk pages, except warnins made by admins in regard of violation of policy. Using edit summaries to level a personal attack is even worst that making one in a talk page, as edit summaries cannot be refactored. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0
Jossi,

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia-CD/Download. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks BozMo. I downloaded it and checked it and was quite excited about it, until ... see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia-CD/Download ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Taipei American School
Taipei American School is not vandalism, it is reverting vanity informatino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.170.134 (talk • contribs)


 * Please discuss in talk page before removing large portions of existing text. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I did!!! 136.152.170.134 23:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to arrive to consensus about what needs to be deleted. Unilateral deletion of large portions of an article requires the consensus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

the involved editors are all students and alumni of TAS, which violates Vanity. Usually people in Taiwan cannot edit english encyclopedias. If it were not for students and alumni of TAS, the page wouldn't even be up there. 136.152.170.134 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you know that? In any case, please discuss at Talk:Taipei American School. If you and other editors are unable to resolve your differences, you may place a request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the history of the article, and their user pages, they are clearly TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

most of the article written by benjamintsai and allentchang, who are both TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit any articles about any subject. The WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO guidelines does not apply to students of an learning institution. The important thing is that the text in the article is properly referenced and atributed. See WP:CITE. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, Jossi. I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will check it out. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

King of the Dancehall
Greetings, Jossi. I'm reinstating your indef. block on King of the Dancehall, whom I recently ran across, as his only contribution since seems to indicate he doesn't care (well, seems to indicate, nothing; he said it). If you disagree, let me know. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems. I think it is a good call to indef-block. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent indefinite block. I was cleaning up his images for quite awhile. I've decided to henceforth allow the bots to take care of this ordeal. -ZeroTalk 09:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Randi
What's non-encyclopedic about reporting on Randi's hospitalization? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response in article talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability
Hi, please be extra careful when editing an important page like WP:V--and probably don't mark the change as minor even if it would be on a normal page. The final section with the quote from Tacitus had lost its table formatting and was just a spew of broken wikimarkup after your change. Because you'd added newlines throughout the change the diff was useless, so I just reverted that one section rather than go to the effort to figure out which change was the cause. Feel free to redo whatever changes you had made to it if you want--sorry I was lazy and didn't figure try to figure it out. Nothings 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC
FYI, Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Endorsed the summary. I understand that this user has additional accounts beyond the reported three accounts? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw someone mention that, but the user name they gave didn't seem to exist. I'll check again later. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Image source?
Can you include the source of Image:Semacode.png? I wish to move it to so I could use it on other projects. Thankyou. Bawolff 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I created that that Barcode image, there is no source. Changed it's license to ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 07:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thanks. Bawolff 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please revert the edits by Merecat that are clearly violating the spirit of the mediation he has suggested. I feel it is highly uncivil to continue inserting his edits while he knows they are disputed and because of that we have asked for mediation.! Nomen Nescio 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot do that. I am not party to this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can intervene by restoring the original content that is in dispute and ask all editors to await resolution through mediation. If nort this is ridiculous, you are supporting Merecat's strongarming the article trhoough his disruptive behaviour.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 17:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. Cannot do that. I am no party to this dispute. If editors keep reverting each other that article may be protected for a cool-off period only. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!
I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk pages are your best defense. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would point out at the RFC, your assesment of my talk page efforts, I would appreciate it. Merecat 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do provide evidence against me
Jossi, I disagree to a great extent with the accusations that you make against me, though I admit that I made minor mistakes lately. Please provide evidence of your accusations on talk:Sathya Sai Baba against me or retract them. Thanks. Andries 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I do not mean evidence from bad edits by me when I was quite new to Wikipedia, but evidence of bad edits from the last half year. Andries 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Jossi Thanks for the Advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates (talk • contribs)
 * You are welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:198.83.120.99
User talk:198.83.120.99 vandalized again, this time IpodLinux... Ban this one now? Maartenvdbent 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time, please place a request at WP:AIV, as I am not always online. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam in Portugal
Thanks for blocking that annoying car hire IP address, everyday is the same thing, that page is really a good target for spammers and other vandalism. I wanted to report that to an admin, but I didn't knew how. Thanks! Afonso Silva 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To report vandalism, you can do so at WP:AIV. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I found that page, but seeing it empty I thought it was a different thing or unused. Next time, I'll use it. Thanks Afonso Silva 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, another IP address, from the same range as the one you blocked yesterday, introduced that same car hire links in the article again, can you so something? Thanks! Afonso Silva 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)