User talk:Jossi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ads	file info – show another – #38

Tip of the day... Cite the source on all image uploads Regardless of how an image you've uploaded is licensed for use on Wikipedia, please include information on its source. This allows admins and other editors to verify the copyrights. This includes pictures you created yourself: if you took the photo, give yourself credit – you deserve it! Read more: Wikipedia:Image use policy Prior tip - Next tip To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}. Become a Wikipedia tipster

[edit] Mount Kailash

Jossi,

I appreciate what you are doing to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, however I feel that including the part on Jainism and maybe even the Bon faith are unnecessary. If I am approaching this the wrong way, please take the correct actions for those pieces of information to be removed. It just seems as if with Jainism it has been forcefully put on there. Remember what is old is not always right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.168.246 (talk • contribs)

to me this is a pocket monster and i thought it was okay to post it so why do you feel differently http://www.forumspile.com/Goatse-TubGirl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.3.52 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection for AT&T/American Telephone & Telegraph/Bell System articles

The same IP user that has been disrupting the Verizon article has also been doing so to the AT&T, American Telephone & Telegraph, and Bell System articles. Several users have grown very frustrated with these edits, notably on the AT&T page, and I have been keeping guard on all of the articles to prevent disruption. Could there be a way to revert these articles back and protect them as well? KansasCity (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. All these articles and now semi-protected ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to counter this argument. The disruption that the above user mentions is not disruption at all. I and others feel our information is correct and we have had the information sourced by both AT&T's web site and other news articles on the web. He went to another admistrator with no luck and In guess he turned to you. The bottom line is that AT&T Corp is a legally functioning subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. The corporation was not dissolved and did not become defunct in 2005. So what is listed on the wikipedia page is in fact inaccurate. Thanks you for looking into thos matter. I refer you to the following link as evidence AT&T Corp is a legal subsidiary of AT&T. http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=7958 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.59.100 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sadly

Thank you for your invite to be a part of the Textual criticism FA drive. Alas, my workload is simply too burdensome at the moment for me to take on anything else. (The end of the school year means final exams and the grading of many essays.) If, in one month's time, you'd still like me to have a look, please let me know. Good luck with it! – Scartol • Tok 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textual criticism

I'll not only copy-edit for you, I'll peer review. You asked the wrong man, or the right man, depending on how you look at it. Textual Criticism is a passion of mine. I'll try hard not to fight with you if I disagree about something. ;)

I've thought for some time the article needed more work. I'm very pressed for time at the moment, but I'll copy edit first, then make some peer reviewish comments, then hang around through the whole process. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, we have a common passion! I welcome your participation and look forward to the review and the copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i see too many supports and conflicts on PR page. Can you please give me some basic links, where i can start formatting the texts correctly? - Taxed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

After this edit, the ref might now be in the wrong place. Would you be able to put it back in the right place (what exactly is the ref supporting there)? Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is OK there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whigg

Please see Talk:Whigg --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roleplay Online

Cheers for the helpful close on that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog... Could you give a hand? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry

When Will said you were holding me at a different standard then Momento, maybe I should not have asked for equal treatment. Maybe it would have been more diplomatic to hold off on that request for awhile. I am sorry if asking it so soon in our conversing put you on the defensive. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND ,WP:NPA, WP:BITE

Your behavior towards me has been out of line and we have been interacting for less then half a day!

In less then 8 hours or so you have:

listed my relatively minor errors,

offered the following "welcoming" message: [[1]

and lastly, for which I am warning you, you made a comment about cognitive capabilities: "I would argue that someone that cannot spell "grammar" correctly, should be more cautious with attempting to fix how a sentence s constructed." [[2]]

The truth is, I misspelled grammar once.

You saw that, implied I was incapable of spelling it correctly, and decided that because of this I need to be more cautious with more complicated undertakings. A very subtle, yet very clear PA, with superiority, all mixed into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohohahaha (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I realize that there has been A LOT of struggle and conflict over these pages. However, please don't take it out on me.

I am not new to wikipedia, however I am new to participating on these article, hence the reminder about wp:bite.

Please desist from focusing on me and/or little errors I make and instead, focus on what I have to say. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, Hohohahaha, please accept my apology. Let's move on, shall we? Restarting in a Tabula rassa, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology and I accept yours. I'm game to move on... and look forward to the challenge of re-entering with a beginner's mind. Hohohahaha (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ingraham high school

Why do you insist on undoing my edits of Ingraham high school. The candyman additions are vanity entrees by the person himself. The school is in the paper all the time for awards, etc. Why keep a flash in the pan incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.6.82 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the material you keep deleting is supported by sources that attest to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Ingraham

The Seattle Times did a story on ducks that hatched in the court yard last year....Should we put in a 200 word paragraph about it?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.6.82 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change at Gandhi

Hi Jossi, Since you presided over the last exchange about the proper name for the page, I thought I'd alert you to the latest attempt at adding the honorific "Mahatma." A move back to Mahatma Gandhi is being plotted. The two main plotters—Nikkul (talk · contribs) and Beamathan (talk · contribs), whose pronouncements are increasingly sounding like Tweedledum and Tweedledee—are talking about moving the page regardless of the discussion, where the fabled consensus is eluding them. (See post1 and post2). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Blurred Star Award for that elusive star.....Frustrating, ain't it? 'twas an ambitious project but Textual criticism is a great choice and a fascinating article. Sadly, I am no expert in the field. Nearly there.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR

Jossi, it did go to ANI. An extremely long thread there and repeated requests for independent review and use of the tools resulted in no block--not even a brief one. Toward the end of the thread I requested that if no admin was willing to block, at least please undelete the content RFC so that it could be restarted. David Gerard restored the RFC without blocking. Would you consider refactoring your RFAR statement in light of that? An unfamiliar reader could suppose you're chiding that I ought to have tried an option which I actually did pursue quite diligently. Durova^Charge! 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take a second look. Also, remember that there are many admins that are willing to make difficult blocks ... you may consider that option in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#Astrotheology 40kb and repeated requests for use of the tools went nowhere. I really am grateful that Moreschi blocked, and as soon as he did I offered to withdraw the RFAr. The block wasn't a difficult one in the sense most people use the term. The fellow was just unusually talented at blowing enough smoke that nobody wanted to intervene. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsider MascotGuy article

FYI. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama

Hey Jossi! I notice that you blocked Fovean Author for 48 hours. How about blocking some of the blatant POV pushers who are trying to whitewash the Obama article? Anyone who doesn't like what they're doing is accused of being a sockpuppet. I voted for the guy in the primaries and I've been repeatedly accused of being an "Obama hater." I'm just trying to create a balanced, NPOV article. Some admin help is needed here to get the Obama apologists under control. You may not like Fovean Author's rhetoric but he has a valid point about these people. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of dispute resolution? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prop. 5

I thought we'd handled all of your issues. If there are others please use the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The issue is that Steve, the mediator, has requested to be the one to assess consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studies of DLM

Hi Jossi. I noticed you dropped a bunch of names for people who have done studies on the talk page for Prop 5[3]. Conway, Flo & Siegelman, Downton, Barret...do you have more information (titles, pub dates, journal names) on these studies? I might be able to pull some of them and give a read, see if I can flesh out that section.

I'm particularly interested in studies that you feel would give balance to what's already there. You mentioned "others", so if you think of any more let me know, even if they're obscure. Anything I find I'd be happy to share with anyone who wants a copy.

Thanks Mael-Num (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The most extensive study is by Downton. The source is an entire book so I cannot share that... Other sources have been used in that proposal already. Comway and Seiegelman study is so poor and statistically meaningless that it is not worth discussing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you throw a few titles my way? The Dowton book is Sacred Journeys? Anything else? Even obscure stuff...I've got pretty good library access. Mael-Num (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

The mediator, Steve Crossin, is the one who asked for the protection via IRC. I therefore protected it. --Chetblong (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed I did, sorry if you didn't know about it, Jossi. You can discuss this with me, I did however see than an edit was made without clear consensus. Now, normally, I wouldn't have an article protected in this instance, but further on in the case, more proposals will be created, and I feel that more edits like this will be made without clear consensus, and in the interest of the mediation and to prevent heated discussion from such edits, I requested protection. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)