Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:58, 12 May 2007

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #3

hi!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Coca-cola

actually, jossi. the coca-cola page was hacked and there was no code with the hack on it so i guess it was some like fixed hack thing. sorry you missunderstood.

i have a wikipedia account its ryryion theryes nothing wrong i would never mess wikipedia up its helped me with alot of papers.

thanks

ryan..

(screen name (aol) westoceanlove16)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.183.240 (talk • contribs)

Jossi, please look at Generation Rescue talk page

We think we have materially improved the citation, and that problems have been created by people who violently disagree with Generation Rescue and want a very slanted entry. All we want is a Wiki page that is neutral and presents BOTH sides of the organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs)

Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title

Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

You comments relating to an edit on Leonardo. 1. I bow to your editorial skill 2. I believe you are in error and obviously uninformed on recent theories regarding DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Therefore I would request you retract you comment of Vandalism as it is unwarranted. There was no nonsense in the comments appended. If you still believe there was, please be specific. I thank you for you concern and applaud you contributions but I do not want you to believe there was nonsense or malice. I would be pleased to have had the opportunity to append cites to support my comment had you not voided them. I would hope that actions were not homophobic and assume you are not involved in art history. I am university educated with an art history minor from Columbia University, N.Y. and studied in Italy as well. In any event, best regards. denidoc@gmail.com

Prince Henry

I will try to follow your suggestions. However, let me point out that the first to insult with vulgar terms like "asshole" was Dr. Lisboa. And it is difficult not to attack a poster who is constantly wrong, refuses to acknowledge his errors, and simply persists in them or drops one error and creates new ones. In short, how gladly must one suffer fools?

professional historian who has corrected Dr. Lisboa's many errors.

Another "Dr" Lisboa on Prince Henry the Navigator complaint

This has nothing to do with the content of the article, but simply the unneccesary insult directed toward me on the talk page. I noticed your post there, and this seems to be the only way of contacting you. I refuse to take abuse from another person, virtual or otherwise. Thank you.

Calligraphy

Hi Jossi. I note tonight that someone put a spam notice at the bottom of the Calligraphy page. I hope it was not you ? I have done most of the editing recently- I have contacted some 3rd parties about their own sites that I have put links to. My judgement is that the assistance and educational value of the ones chosen is significant. There are a number of editing decisions that I have made that exclude content on the basis of it being an invitation for all and sundry to post their own sites or books. I recommend that if someone has a specific objection that they make it public. Otherwise I think we're on the right track. What do you think about the prominent calligraphers list ? I don't think that it is useful and again poses a threat to the credibility of the main site. ayou may wish to read my recent contributions on the discussion board regarding some of the things I have had to correct- one example includes changing a short, direct quotation from a reputable source into a misquotation. Can we have a look at introducing some new images and perhaps removing "Urkunde" ? Please respond on my talk page. Regards.≈ Furminger ≈ 19 April 2007

I did not touch that article for a while. For an guideline on what is acceptable as an external link, see WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

FoF mediation

Hey there.

I was wondering why you removed the Big Fat Note(tm) from the Fellowship of Friends article to move it to the talk page? I understand it's a bit ugly there, but given that work is currently done on a draft of the disputed page, we wanted to avoid risking loosing edits done to the main article by passing editors that didn't know where editing currently took place.

As far as I can tell, there are no guidelines saying this is a no-no (please tell me if there is, I'd like to know) and this was felt to be a good way to warn others. Coren 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These notices are designed to be placed on talk pages, and not on articles. The fact that editors are engaged in dispute resolution is not a concern to our readers. Use the {{POV}} or {{disputed}} tags for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

External Link Edit

Cheers, Jossi. I seek to understand your perspective. On the Hamilton_College_(Iowa) page you removed a link, saying: (studentsreview.com. Not to be linked to as per WP:EL) (actual link was Reviews of Hamilton College). I read EL....but I'm not seeing why this site would be automatically excluded. I found it useful, and wish I had found it before enrolling. Slainte! averagejoe 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi JR. See Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Ratemyteachers.com. Also, It is obviously not a source that is reliable for the purpose of an encyclopedia ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

User:Chris gately should probably be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, though it's just my opinion. Thank you for your hard wiki-work. —ScouterSig 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... If does it again, he will be indefblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guru and Koenraad Elst

Thanks for your enquiry about my removal of an Elst quote from the Guru page. The Indologist in question, while popular in certain circles, has no academic position, has published no peer-reviewed work, and his PhD is on Hindu nationalist discourse, on which he has published no peer-reviewed work or anything with an academic press. Nevertheless, I think he is an eminently quotable person on issues relating with the internal dynamics of Hindu nationalism; I merely think that quoting him on mainstream pages, like that for Guru, for example, is not encyclopaedic, and ruled out by WP:Fringe. He is out of the mainstream of academic thought on several respects, should not be quoted extensively outside his speciality, and quoted with care even there. Hornplease 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Hornplease. I would argue that as if he is notable enough to have a full article in WP, he may be notable enough to be cited in articles, in particular when we are attributing the text to him, and not asserting the text as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. That's where WP:FRINGE comes in. Many individuals and theories are notable enough for their own articles, but are not authoritative enough to be quoted as encyclopaedic in articles which are about issues unrelated to their specific non-mainstream field of thought. Do you have any reason to suppose otherwise in this particular case? Hornplease 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)'

I see your point, but I do not see how the text that you deleted falls in the category of WP:FRINGE. He makes a critique of Storr's book, and that is not a fringe theory, but a viewpoint that, given Elst's background, would be of interest to readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting; but if Storr's book is sufficiently notable, then there will have been criticism of it that is encyclopaedic. The problem is not that the critique in itself is fringe - I do not know that, in the absence of any information about other critiques. The problem is that by using this particular critic, the critique loses encyclopaedic value as the critic himself is not encyclopaedic. While Storr's book may very well need to be balanced with other interpretations, those interpretations should be at least from within the framework of review and oversight that we require, and that produced Storr's book.

We simply can't put anything in, even if its interesting; the simple problem is, that given it's Elst saying it, and Elst is not a mainstream academic or commentator on the subject, can we say 'yes, this is a central criticism of Storr', or will that be misleading our readers? Hornplease 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see this differently. Storr does not even have an article in Misplaced Pages, does he? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does... Anthony_Storr. But one could argue that he is less notable/authoritative on the subject than Elst... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, remove them both. But I must say I doubt that Elst will get an obit in the Times. Hornplease 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to remove both, but I am certain that it will be reverted... Also, I do not think that an obit on the Times is the threshold for notability. If that was the case 90% of the content in WP will need to be wiped out... : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Good job at Fundamental Rights in India, btw. )≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

Hey there.

I've commented a bit on the talk page over there, and since I don't know how closely you are looking at the work in progress, I thought it good to drop you a note here.

Please understand that I can plainly see you are a more experienced editor than I, but I think you might not have gotten a good feeling of how things were shaping up, and I'm a bit worried that your intervention might be perceived by the disputing editors as requiring a defensive posture, and shatter the tenuous truce that had begun to give productive results.

Bold is good, but so is being a little more relaxed about the guidelines if it leads to editors sitting down together to make a good article from what was originally a POV war field.

Cluck. Cluck. Cluck. Forgive me if I take that particular article under my protection.  :-) Coren 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:) No problems. I did not want to jump into the draft page, but hopefully the edits I made to the article and the tags I placed would be useful. If you need any help with the mediation, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi jossi, since you know more then anyone about these sources and other things, could you please comment on this (advertising and articles), as I think it's serious (Coren seems to be on a break). Thanks a lot. Aeuio 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject spam

Thought you might find this article to be of interest . I hope you keep the conversation going at the project. The language is due for an overhaul. Nposs 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some suggestions, that you may consider. I am far too busy with other wiki projects to want to join Wikiproject spam, but I 'll keep an eye of that page to see if I can be of help in rewording it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy

Hi Jossi. Just a brief note to say that someone has updated the Calligraphy page with respect to Indian calligraphy, but has introduced a prallel referencuing system which is laborious to bring into line with the structure in place. Any chance that you could contact the person concerned and ask them to do it please? ≈ Furminger ≈ 28 April 2007

Just place a note at talk:Calligraphy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

40,000

Congratulations. Sign of a misspent youth. ;-D SlimVirgin 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ACIM Thanks! and help

Hi Jossi

Thanks for all of your help in sorting out the small conflict on A Course in Miracles. You did one edit unrelated to the conflict that I do not understand and I am hoping that you can help me understand the policy better.

In the "Key concepts" section there is a list of what someone believes are the key concepts of ACIM. I had noticed that there were no sources for this section so I placed an "unreferencedsect" tag. You then removed the tag. I do not understand why. There is not a list of "key concepts" in the book. Without sources the section appears to me to defy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

I am not looking for any kind of conflict here. I am interested in learning why you think the above policies to not apply to this section.

Thanks so much.—Who123 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My assumption, Who123.... I though there was such a section in the book. I would remove that section altogether as it has been unreferenced for quite a long time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the Unicode error right away ... you just barely beat me to reverting it.  :) I'll have to watch out for that in the future ... it was a browser extension to pop up an external editor that caused the problem, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjpremore (talk • contribs)

Yep. That happens...≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne merge

Your attention is appreciated here: - Throw 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Opinion

After reading a few of the other reviews on an article that was nominated for deletion, it occurs to me that some of these lists of xxxxx would seem to be a product of WP:OR.

If we (as editors) go out and research WP:RS material, and compile a list, and publish it as an article ... isn't that the definition of Original Research?

Maybe I'm being too technical, but it would seem to me, that a Category might qualify to hold a list, but not an article.

An article talks about a subject, and cites WP:RS sources and what they have said about the subject. To publish an article about shoes, we can basically only talk about shoes in the article and the specific subject of shoes must exist and must have been written about.

Its abstract, but in order to publish an article about List of organizations referred to as Cleaning companies, wouldn't the subject list of organizations referred to as Cleaning companies need to exist and people have written about it? We don't appear to be citing WP:RS sources that have written about a list of organizations, we are citing individual WP:RS material as verification for our WP:OR as we compile a list.

Your thoughts?

Lsi john 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with lists in Misplaced Pages, in particular with lists about subjects that are controversial. You can read an essay I worked on with others: Misplaced Pages:Lists in Misplaced Pages, some of which have been incorporated into WP:LIST. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. The more I think about this, the more I really believe that LISTS on wiki are WP:OR, whether they are controversial or not. A list is a compiled set of data, which is a research product. Categories would seem to be bit more legitimate, but not articles called 'lists'. A list seems to be a back door to original research. Even harmless/uncontroversial lists should be removed. Rules are rules. Exceptions lead to chaos. Lsi john 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Status quo is getting harder and harder to change as the project grows. I would argue that there is no chance to get lists removed from WP. Some lists are excellent navigational aids, although you can achieve the same via categories. You may also want to talk with some of the editor5s at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lists and see what the say to that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tkx. :-} Lsi john 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

-

What is the general response for seemingly frivolous allegations brought to the incidents notice board? And what is an appropriate response from outside individuals. Specifically, was my response appropriate? Lsi john 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can comment on Noticeboards, this is a wiki. As for your question if what you wrote is appropriate or not, that would be something that you should assess for yourself. Note that admins that attend to noticeboards and quite experienced and can assess very quickly is the incident reported warrants their intervention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I was not asking for an assessment of my content, but rather feedback on whether or not it was appropriate to post there.

In the same way that we decide whether or not information belongs in an article, by evaluating whether or not it adds significant value to the article, I was asking for your opinion on whether or not third party opinions on that board added significant value to the board.

Not being totally familiar with the entire process, I am not sure who works which boards and what rank or status is required to handle or help with things on those boards.

From your citation that the admins are quite experienced, I would conclude that third party posting does not provide significant value and is thus unnecessary and distracting.

Thanks again. Lsi john 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, admins are experienced to assess these notices. On the other hand, any editor has the right to comment on these notices, and in may cases it is a welcome addition, as it gives the admin more information. In this case, you should preempt your statement by saying that you are not an admin, and state your comment as neutrally as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is the feedback I was looking for. It is my goal to conduct myself wiki-proper. To do that, I look to more experienced editors/admins to advise me, not on content, but on context. Peace in God. Lsi john 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-

Feel free to flick a booger at me if I become a pest... You guessed it, I have another question.. If cited material, specifically avoids mentioning the name of the company, can that source be used in the article as reference material? Specifically, the only reference to a company in the material is at the top of the page:

"Note: The use of the term "Vitality Initial Training" refers to the Basic Training of a well-known LGAT."

If the author of the material specifically avoids identifying the company, are we permitted to use his work and make that connection ourselves? Lsi john 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not think so. That would be a violation of WP:NOR. Editors should not get involved in speculation, but rather, in describing what reliable sources say about a subject. No more, no less. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on that reply, would you be so kind as to make sure I'm not missing something here:

#21. http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/v-intro.htm

That article is referenced in the Lifespring article and it appears to specifically divorce itself from identifying specfically with Lifespring.

If you concur with my assessment that this reference falls into your above description of WP:NOR, then what is the procedure for removing it? Can I assume I should simply delete the reference and remove any material in the article which cited it? Lsi john 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The excerpt of that source does not mention Lifespring, and as such the source does not match the text. Forget about NOR, that source does not speak of the subject of the article. I would place a dispute tag, and ask editors to provide a quote of the book (including page number) in which Lifespring is mentioned in that context. I would use {{Citecheck}} that says: This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text. If no quotation is provided in 7 days or so, you can delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, much obliged. Gota love propaganda. Lsi john 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Solo se que no se nada. Policia pata podria, no tiene un chele pa la comida. Is understanding the issue, or choosing not to understand the issue? I'd hope that my last comment/post spelled it out for anyone who was trying to understand and not play word games. Lsi john 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reports prepared for the Congressional Research Service are not government reports

I'm sorry to question your logic, but could you explain how they aren't? Anynobody 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the are not. Reports prepared by the FBI are. Reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service, are "think tank" reports prepared under the request of a Congressman, for the purpose of getting informed. These are reports for Government and not "Government reports". A subtle but very significant distinction: A "Government Report" carries the imprimatur of the Government. A report prepared for Congress by an individual researcher at the CSR carries no such imprimatur. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) lets assume you are correct, where do "Government Reports" come from? Is there a dedicated office of Government Reports (who puts the imprimatur on the reports), and if so what branch of the government does it work for?

I don't mean to come off like a smart ass, so please answer my questions. Your logic in saying that an agencies of the Legislative or Executive branchs of government aren't part of the government is highly illogical. (If the FBI receives a report, and keeps it as a source of information it becomes a government report because it's being used by a part of the government). Anynobody 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing a Government document with a Government Report. One is a piece of paper with writing on it. Another is an official declaration perpared BY the Government and released with an express purpose of a Report. Lsi john 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I mean report when I say report, but that is actually not the meat of the discussion. "Is a document/report from CRS, the FBI, etc. considered a "government" document or report?" is the nature of the discussion. Anynobody 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain: Let's say that Commission X at Congress is working on legislature on carbon emissions. They ask the CSR to do a study on the impact of moving to 20% ethanol in all gas stations in the US. The CSR assigns researcher Joe Blow to research the subject, and Joe produces a report named "The impact of ethanol on carbon emissions". The report will be signed by "Joe Blow", a researcher employed by the Library of Congress. That is not a government report. Now, if Commission X at Congress uses that information and creates an official report based on that and other research, then 'that report will be considered a "Government report". Get it now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The report in question does not carry the signature (and therefore no imprimatur) of the government of the United States. It carries the signature of a researcher, in this case an employee of the Library of Congress. Would you call a record at LCC (Library of Congress Catalog) a "government report". Surely not. It is published by the LC, doesn't it?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A government employee, at a government agency, prepares a report about ethanol's impact on carbon emessions, for a government body that is not a government report? What kind of report would it be then? It certainly isn't a private report. Anynobody 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it a government record. Anynobody 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither. That is a report on a study made for the government. Thousands of these are prepared by one agency or another. Some of these are private, some classified, some of them are on the public domain. We cannot call these "Government Reports" as if these have the imprimatur of the Government of the US. They do not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you are not persuaded by my logic, perhaps you'll listen to Ben Franklin at gpoaccess.gov guide to U.S. government for kids - Note the flow chart designating the LOC an agency of Congress. If you still don't think publications (seems more accurate and will avoid confusing document/report by including both, plus it's what the government calls them) by a government agency are not government publications then what would you call all of these publications/reports/resources/etc: gpoaccess.gov Congressional reports gpoaccess.gov Legislative Branch Resources for more general information about the whole US government check out usa.gov]. Anynobody 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of semantics, Anynobody. When you read in a WP article "In a US government report, this and that was said about X", what will a reader think? That the report is a report produced by the the Government of the United States of America that carries the support and imprimatur of that government, right?. And that would be 100% misleading if that "report" was written by a researcher based on a request from a Congressman/Congresswoman, as that report only represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the Congressman, or the government. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, where in the government is this decided according to your understanding:...have the imprimatur of the Government of the US. They do not.? Anynobody 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Any official report of the Government will be placed on the public domain, will have the seal of the specific branch of government that issued the report, and will be signed by government officials. You can an find most of these in the Federal Register. For example, when you speak of "Congressional Reports" above, note that these are government reports, produced by specific committees appointed by Congress. On the other hand, a study by a researcher employed by the LOC is not a government report. Massive difference, Anynobody. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but according to the Federal Register: Not all documents created by U.S. federal agencies are published in the Federal Register. The government has the power to classify documents so that they are not published.A classified government publication/document/report is still "government". Anynobody 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure. But as you rightly pointed out, we also have other means by which government makes public its reports.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that goes toward my point as well: if it was produced by or for a government agency it is government property. Anynobody 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading my responses? I am not arguing if it is the property of the Government or not. What I am saying is that you cannot call a report written by a researcher employed by the LOC a "Government report", because simply it is not. That report represents the opinion of the researcher and not of the government. On the other hand the report "S. Rpt. 109-322 – Hurricane Katrina" by he Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Congresswoman Susan M. Collins, Maine, signed by Ted Stevens, Alaska; Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut; Norm Coleman, Minnesota and tens more, 'is a goverment report. See the difference? It is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder shouldn't be needed

You are correct about this, Jossi. My apologies for even being involved in an interaction which would have you write that. I was tired, not at my best, and annoyed at what occurred to me as a flip attack with no value and so I reacted in like kind. Thanks for the reminder- even if it shouldn't have been needed. Alex Jackl 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your undocumented claim that Thetford was a "writer" of ACIM until documentation can be provided.

Dear Jossi,
        I'm not sure what you were referencing when you claimed that Thetford was documented as having "written" ACIM. I have reverted this claim until it can be documented. To the best of my knowledge, the word "scribe" was never used by any sources that I am aware of to imply "writing" or "authorship" of ACIM. To the best of my knowledge, Schucman was the only one that any of the three original editors (Schucman, Thetford & Waphnick) ever allowed to be listed as an author (or writer) of the work. Could you document otherwise?

          Thanks,

          -Scott P. 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not add such wording, did I? The wording I used was: According to Helen Schucman. That is OK as I was attributing that claim to her and not asserting that as a fact. I have no intention to editwar, so I leave it up to you to reconsider your reversion. Be well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere

Thankyou for your interest in the Richard Gere issue presently unfolding, and for your contributions. I understand you have begun a new RfC process at the Gere talk page as an attempt to pursue the matter further. I can completely see that your motives for doing so are constructive. However, I would like to point out that there has been extensive discussion, not only at the Gere talk page (much of it archived, prematurely in my opinion) and the BLP noticeboard, but at the Jimbo Wales talk page also. This discussion has moved from forum to forum, always initiated by Sparkzilla whenever he was unhappy with the way things were going at any particular venue for discussion. It has taken an enormous amount of effort to continue arguing the case and responding to the arguments of others. There has been ample opportunity for interested editors to get involved. I also note that Sparkzilla has already begun interfering with your RfC, arguing about what it is about, editing it to suit him, etc. What I am saying is this: at present I believe it has been clearly established that there is no consensus to include this material. My fear is that by initiating yet another discussion, the result will be that opposing editors simply run out of energy to continue putting their case. Dragging out the issue interminably can be a way of wearing down opponents. Again, I can see this is not your motivation, but I truly wonder about whether this issue really requires more comment. What it actually requires is for editors to admit that there is no consensus to include this material. At least seven editors have already argued that the material ought not be included. Thanks again. FNMF 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, to be honest, I don't believe the RfC should have been opened before the close of the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Opening the RfC in the middle of the BLP noticeboard discussion allows editors to escape the conclusions of the noticeboard discussion. In fact, I consider this decision catastrophic, as I don't think I can be bothered fighting these clear policy violations any longer. Editors should not have been allowed to escape facing the clear conclusion of the BLP noticeboard discussion, which is that there is no consensus to include this material. Again, I understand this was not your intention, but I fear it will be the result. FNMF 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw some disruptive activity by Sparkzilla and warned him. You can simply close the RFC by providing diffs to other RFC-type discussions such as the BLP noticeboard and others. If Sparkzilla persists in disruption by opening further RFCs, he can be stopped by blocking for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Thanks for the suggestion. My feeling is that Sparkzilla et al are certain to strongly object to my closing the RfC, on the grounds I am too involved. I think it would work better if you did it yourself, being the opener. FNMF 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted some comments at Talk:Richard Gere. I will keep an eye on this for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on usage of other user's comments

Jossi, in Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, Smee recently copied another user's comments into a new discussion section and included their signature and timestamp.

Whether unintentionally or intentionally, the appearance was that the other user had commented on the discussion.

Then, based on those two opinions, Smee went on to edit the article and cited those comments as justification for the edit.

I reverted the comments and the edit, as I believed them both to be rather improper.

Was my action correct?

Lsi john 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You will need to ask involved editors, John, but it is quite OK to cite other editors in discussions. I would simply place their comments in to a {{quotation}} block, to denote that it is my citing and not their commenting. You may propose that to Smee. We are all learning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Yes. If the comments had been referenced in "quotes" and identified as being placed by Smee in support of his position, then I would not have had an objection. I have done this myself. I blockquote, italicize, " quote it and provide their signature.

In this case, the other user's text was transplanted into the discussion, in first person, including signature, followed by Smee's comments. And then Smee edited the article, and claimed support from the discussion.

I felt this was improper and thus I reverted the edits to the discussion and the article. I posted on and said very similar to what you said above.

My question to you was not content, it was context. Was my action appropriate based on what I saw?

I'm not looking for an opinion on Smee's behavior, I'm asking for an opinion on mine.

Lsi john 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of this WP:BRD? That is a great way to engage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lsi john 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

72.166.78.66 is vandalising again

Hi. I'm currently undoing vandalism by User:72.166.78.66. It seems you blocked this IP last month. Maybe it's time to do that again. Gronky 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

done --BozMo talk 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult list

Heya. I think Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination) is ready to be junked. It was a horribly presented AfD; perhaps this is because it was an improperly formed and then resubmitted by a keep !voter, perhaps not. Either way, the responses for both keep and delete are completely inconsistent. There are several different reasons people !voted delete, several keep !votes that do not seem to address criticisms at all, and plenty of considerable arguments as well. After I explore the subject a bit in the talk page I'd like to resubmit the AfD, providing it with a proper focus for discussion so we can finally find a consensus one way or the other on this forever-questioned article. I'm kinda concerned that it'd be in bad taste to put up a new AfD too soon. How long is appropriate to wait? Ichibani 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That article has been 5 times up for AfD, and this is the sixth time. Dontt see any future AfDs possible in the near future. The only way to address this would be to declare the article non-compliant and to participate in a discussion in talk. But my feeling is that you will be overwhelmed by these editors that have made that "list" their leitmotif. Hopefully the closing admin will see the problem and delete the article or give strong advice to fix what is obviously broken with that list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Henosis

Hey THANKS! LoveMonkey 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look(also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Experimenting with the Republican Party (United States) page"

Jossi:

I reveiced this message from you:

"Thank you for experimenting with the page Republican Party (United States) on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

I was not signed into my account when I made my change to the Republican Party page. I am not a new user and do not need to be directed to the sandbox for experimentation or welcome page for a tutorial.

As for the change I made, it contained verifiable information from the Republican Party website. It was CORRECT information. I changed a couple of sentences regarding the original meaning of "G.O.P. and cited the Republican Party's homepage. The wiki page's information was simply not complete. "G.O.P." was an abbreviation for "Gallant Old Party," which was another way of referring to the Republican Party dating back to 1875. It was not until 1876 that "Grand Old Party" appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary as another name for the Party. This information can be found easily by checking out Republican Party history per their website. I advise you to review it yourself: http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3

I am interested in making this encyclopedia as complete as it can possibly be. You must be open to new, properly written contributions citing legitimate sources. Sure, it's hard to accept that the page to which you've contributed is not as comprehensive as you thought. But, frankly, I don't care. This isn't about you (or me for that matter). It's about the veracity of the information we are presenting.

~ask123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask123 (talk • contribs)

(please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~)

Yes, you made that edit without being logged on (see diff] and the source you provided did not match the text you added. If you are not logged, there is now way for others to know that you are not a new user. As for the revert, note that the source says that "apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was "gallant old party." Your text asserted that "actually stood for 'Gallant Old Party.". I have corrected this in the article. In the future, please log on and stay close to the sources you provide. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS America merge

Hello. In a follow-up to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shalom, Nadav. Is it not that the AfD was closed with a delete? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Shadowbot3

The bot was removing sections without archiving, see Shadow1's comment on Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. I rolled back all the bot's edits. Grandmasterka 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say hello, and that the NOR Talk Page is getting extremely frustrating. I have brought it to the attention of two other admin, but they have not yet stepped in. User_talk:Rockpocket#Ack.2C_Sorry is one such spot. If you go there, you will notice my suspicions about User:Lode_Runner. He claims to be new (he cited "dont bite the newbie" rule) and not sure about things, but also used quite a lot of Wiki references and cited rules more than what any new person would. If you look at his contributions, it seems strange that he would have experience with running into enough arguments over Original Research that he would come to the rule page to change it.

Be it coincidental or not, an argument was started over at Warhammer (40,000) Talk Page which had Pak21 citing the new rule almost as soon as it was created to try and "win" an argument. Localzuk also came from over there to argue against the NOR rule in order to "win" the argument to. It feels incredibly suspicious. btw, you can reply on my page or here. I don't mind either way. You can also edit anything of this post out if you so choose.SanchiTachi 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, SanchiTachi. When confronted with editors like these, my learning is that it is better to space out your responses so that it does not become a duel. Believe me when I say that the core policies of WP are being monitored closely by many experienced editors and you should not be feel alone in that endeavor. Give some space an time to other such editors to comment. If you feel frustrated, it is better to let go for a day. You will be surprised how well can Misplaced Pages manage without one of us. Read the wrote by W. Wilson at the top of this page. Disruptive editors hang themselves given enough rope: it is just a matter of being patient... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a personal interest (not personal opinion mind you) in wanting to argue there in order to keep it from back spilling into the Warhammer page, as people tend to take moments of quiet as a vindication and then spread it onto countless other pages. Its all icky all the way around. I kinda wish that the main page of such rules pages be protected and only admin allowed to correct/change/clarify/clean up language based on Pump, RfC, Talk, etc. People tend to believe that if its editable, that you can basically assume whatever you want about the title/page without actually reading anything beyond the title of the said page. SanchiTachi 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Misplaced Pages, my friend. Take the good, and do not allow the bad to affect you much. Look at it this way: Where would you have had the chance to interact with such a diverse group of people. I am learning so much about human nature, as I am exposed to so many different type of people with such a divergence of viewpoints. That's the good. The bad, is that it can frustrate the heck out of you. Don't let it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)

Jossi, thank you for placing the RFC re the Gere/Crawford marriage on my behalf. I think the discussion is moving along well. I have decided to take a break from that issue. I would like to ask for a third opinion on a couple of issues, both of which are to do with "exceptional claims" and Metropolis magazine. the reason I am contacting you specifically is that you were kind enough to offer comments on one of the issues previously.

1. On the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) page an editor is continualy inserting an item which I think is an exceptional claim. The item is...

In it's 14th January 2000 issue, Tokyo Weekender, an English language bi-monthly free magazine reported on controversial claims made by the Japan Traveller magazine that the Tokyo Classified was "exaggerating their circulation figures" by "claiming 40,000 to 50,000 circulation while attesting that they actually print a fraction of that number."

If you look at the Weekender source you will see that the author is refering to a newcomer magazine that has made a claim of crirculation fraud against Metropolis. Note that the author calls the publisher of the article a "newcomer, "wet behind the ears" and that he casts doubt on the claim. "While I'm not certain of Tokyo Classified's circulation figures (nor is, I'm certain, James C. Gibbs)". I have argued that this is not an acceptable source for such a claim.

Regarding the original article on Japan Traveler to which the author refers, I cannot find it on the Japan Traveler site, Google and the Internet Archive but it does not appear. In fact, it appears to be a blocked site, on the Internet Archive, which means that the publisher himself has blocked it.

What is your opinion on the use of the Weekender source?

2. On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) page I have the reverse issue, where an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information from Metropolis. The removed claims here: Talk about the claim is here: . In this case my position is that the major exceptional claim is that Baker lied to the public, and that these removed claims support the major claim. In other words, the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right.

If you remember you actually read through the article some time ago and said that these claims were not exceptional. However, the issue keeps coming up. I appreciate your advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please note that the histories of the users Special:Contributions/221.253.85.230, Special:Contributions/heatedissuepuppet and to some extent Special:Contributions/David Lyons who are adding this material as they appear to be accounts set up specifically to attack Metropolis and the Baker issue in particular.

Hu Sparzilla. Dunno if I will have time to look into this in the next few days. But if I do, I will surely take a look and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I bet there's no need to tell you this, but if you have a look at the first issue, you should be aware that the anonymous editor who has been putting that claim in originally referred to the printed publication - which of course should be enough on its own. Also, please see the Metropolis talk page for a really long and informative comment on the Japan Weekender the same editor posted. Thanks in advance Heatedissuepuppet 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, we now only need comment on item 2 above (exceptional claims on Nick Baker page). Your guidance would be most appreciated. Thank you. Sparkzilla 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Items of interest

Fyi: 3O Items of interest. and Lsi john 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture

Greetings. Having talked to User:Mr.Z-man, I'd like to offer to assist with mediation. I have background in the study of religion, though not specializing in NRMs or cults. Please let me know if you'd accept my involvement and any suggestions, too. If involved, I would apprentice in effect w/Zman. Thanks. HG 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. You will need to talk to User:Dking that so far has not been willing to engage in the mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Placed my offer on Dking's talk page and at the mediation case here. Meanwhile, let me ask you a few questions.

1. Forgive me if this sounds naive, but one of your chief concerns is that, by including a group (e.g., Mormons or Christian Scientists), there is an implied claim that the group is a cult. Justanother suggested that the article qualify its claim, e.g. "Alleged cults and...." (Now I see that Dking also seems to suggest "alleged cults.") What was your response to these suggestions? Provided that the allegations are referenced and duly notable, wouldn't this alleviate any undue implication that the Misplaced Pages Encyclopedia itself (rather than those making the allegation) considers the group a cult?
2. Along these same lines, you seem to be concerned about whether allegations against certain groups/people have been given undue weight. (WP:Undue) Would you please clarify which groups/individuals, in this dispute, you believe have not been substantiated as either NRM nor an "alleged cult"? (e.g., Mormons, Christian Scientists, Ayn Rand, William Reich) For instance, I see there are now four sources on Rand, fn 15-18. At first glance, this seems like adequate referencing.
3. Mr.Z-man raised the question of old references. For instance, if a notable cultural work names XYZ as a cult in 1900, would you object to the inclusion of this naming in the article? Even if XYZ is not a considered a cult today, I don't see why this is objectionable if properly contextualized. E.g., the Mormons were treated like an abusive group and persecuted in the past (due to the 19th C anti-polygamy movement), but couldn't past still be recorded in an encyclopedia?

Thanks for your consideration. As I try to understand people's concerns and explore potential common ground, I also will pose some questions to Dking once he responds to me. Take care, HG 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Oil spill

Thank you for clearing up vandalism done to Oil spill, and for blocking the vandal. However, the reverts you did only reverted to a revision which still contained vandalism carried down from other illegitimate edits. I have reverted to a pretty earlier revision of it. please see . Thank you. Oh, and please reply on my talk page. Thank you.Optakeover 05:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

162.127.23.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

May I ask if it was truly wise to block this IP for only 3 hours? This has been the same vandal for several days over (same nonsense about denny on May 4, May 8, May 9, not to mention similar editing patterns. The Evil Spartan 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a school. If it continues we can soft-indefblock and place a {{schoolblock}}. Keep and eye and let me know id it persists vandalizing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching it vandalize for days. The guy will just be backing adding his crap tomorrow or the next day, as he's been doing for weeks, even months if you check the history (seems to show only vandalism, and on repeated articles and in the same type). There is plenty of precedent for blocking schools for longer periods of time, as in fact you originally did: {{schoolblock}}. The Evil Spartan 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be one student, and that is why I want to wait and see as I do not want to block the entire school. Next time he does it, we shall permablock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

are you aware

of the harassment I'm currently getting? And is there anything I can do to stop it or am i just wiki-screwed? Lsi john 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I left my comments at WP:ANI ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Creating Policy

Please reconsider your placement of the proposed tag at the Creating policy page. It has been tagged as guideline since May 2005 . Only in the last week or so has there been objection and an attempt to demote it. Please revert yourself. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see... In any case, someone already beat me to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

• Can you pop over and delete the page, User talk:Lsi admin. User:Lsi john wishes this, but at the moment he is blocked per WP:3RR. I have removed my objections to this deletion, and I have detailed why on that talk page. Thank you for your time. Smee 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Page deleted and recreated with the {{usernameblock}} only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Though I am not opposed to this myself. It appears that User:Lsi john probably is. I had made my prior request above out of acknowledgement of his frustration and state of upset due to the recent circumstances. But if that is what you feel is best for the page at present, I have no objection. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I e-mailed you, Jossi. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I disagree with your behavior that strikes me as a bad faith enforcment of WP:BLP. I will make a complaint about your behavior at the Misplaced Pages:BLP noticeboard Andries 23:27, 9 May 2007 (U0TC) Andries 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Gere

Just a reminder that the RfC you opened about the Gere issue is now a week old. I think it proved to be productive, despite my original objections: it has made clear that the numbers are strongly against inclusion of the disputed material. Thanks. FNMF 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it worked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A note

You have recently blocked Sarenne (talk · contribs) over 3RR, and unblocked when she promised to stop. Over a different incident and promise, I have blocked and unblocked her as well. However, I should note that despite your unblock notice that "user promises not to violate 3RR", she did break 3RR once more on MIPS architecture. FYI. >Radiant< 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The block should increase and increase for each new incident, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out. HerHis recent comments have been troubling, and she's accusing people of lying and other nastiness. >Radiant< 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm a he, and yes, I'm accusing Fnagaton of lying, nothing more. You have a problem with that ? Sarenne 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:CIV has a problem with calling people liars. >Radiant< 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm accusing him of being a liar so you and the policy have a real problem. Sarenne 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A question about 3RR

I appreciate if you answer my question. Cheers!(Arash the Archer 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the welcome. But you didn't answer my question. It is obvious that user Miskin has done more than 3 reverts that had nothing to do with BLP or Vandalism. So what was the reason for no action?(Arash the Archer 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Because all editors involved were actively editing, changing and reverting, and the edits were all different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that blocks for 3RR violation and not punitive, but preventative. I do not see any further editwarring to warrant a block at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I underestand your second argument but I don't agree with the first one. Since it is obvious that Miskin is pushing his/her POV here. (Arash the Archer 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Not to butt in, but I made a comment over there. Talk:Last_stand#Persian_Gate_and_Porus. I hope it sheds some light on the argument and prevents it from getting out of hand. SanchiTachi 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

-Preventative?

I'm curious why my block was almost 24 hours after my R's. You didn't block me and its history now.. but still, I'm curious. It seemed punitive in my case. Lsi john 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for your unblocking on that basis, and after a short exchange we agreed that you may have needed a break in any case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Though I guess I might have preferred being told nicely to take 24 or be blocked.. with which I would have complied. Convictions are hard to get expunged, and successive penalties don't get shorter. ;) (not that I'm anticipating successive penalties.. but I wasn't anticipating this one either).

And, that being said, though I didn't know the first edit counted, I did technically break the rule. And therefore I have no one to blame but myself. Thanks. Lsi john 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Privacy issue

Lsi john 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw it, but I will not comment as I am involved in editing articles with you and the others in that incident. Let other admins deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't soliciting involvement, just tossing a heads up. Lsi john 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External links guidelines

Hi Jossi. I wanted to let you know I started a bit more activity on the discussion over "When assessing external links you need to simply ask..." section, suggesting it be eliminated. I believe you added the section and I was hoping for your input since at the moment the only people commenting on the page are in support of eliminating. I know it can be a draining page to work on, but having different points of view is important to developing good guidelines. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done my bit there, and other editors are now involved. It is quite tedious nowadays to make any changes to guideline pages, and that is probably not a a bad thing... although it makes us unable to adapt to the new challenges generated by the project's success. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary escalation?

If you think that this request for mediation is unnecessary escalation then please explain how we can collaborate in this case when the article oscillates between two very different versions. I think that no collaboration is possible anymore, only reverts. Andries 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question in your e-mail. You only tried to intimidate me. Andries 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not. And yes, I answered your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will post your e-mail to me here so that everybody can have his or her own judgment about your e-mail to me. Is that okay for you? Andries 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a breach of etiquette. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a far greater violation of etiquette to publicly misrepresent your private communication to me and if I can correct that with publishing our communication then I think that would learn you a lesson not to break etiquette again. Andries 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please retract your comment above? The one that misrepresented is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said to you in that email is that you will not prevail in attempting to escalate this; and that your intentions to escalate are way too transparent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You should know better by now, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you insist, this was my message to you:

Just to let you know that I can see through your tactics. These will not work, and you know it.

Attempting to take this to mediation when we just completed a first phase of responding to the GA review? No way. Attempting to escalate this to the ArbCom? Good luck. (a) ArbCom will not take in content disputes. You know that already; (b) Your past behavior in your two botched mediations and recent ArbCom case will work against you; (c) Your recent accusations BLP/N only shows your real intention and transparent for all to see;

You will not prevail, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the e-mail. Again, I do not think that collaboration is possible when the article oscillates between two highly divergent versions and when both factions are unwilling to use "the other" version as a basis for further improvement of the article. The inability to collaborate justifies mediation. Andries 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your inability to collaborate does not justifies anything, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

why should I do the extra work of giving exhaustive comments on a very flawed piece of writing when a good piece of writing is already available. I am unwilling to do unnecessary work and have years of my work thrashed for no good reason at all. That is not uncollobarative that is just common sense and practical. Andries 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because that is the way Misplaced Pages works. Can you please consider that you may be disrupting the collaboration process to make a point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is generally accepted practice and basic politeness everywhere to avoid unnecessary work for others. Misplaced Pages is not an exception to this rule. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The GA review, which you gladly accepted, says that the article in its previous state was not a "good piece of writing". You keep dismissing points made by third party editors, not only here but everywhere lately. Why do you ask for third party opinions if you are not willing to listen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I stated that the old version was reasonable and that the re-write was worse. I see no contradiction between the GA review and my opinion. I see no good reason to revert to a worse version and wait until it gets better. That is the wrong order. First make something better and then replace the old version with the better version. Andries 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But that can only be achieved by collaborating on a new version, which you have not done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR???

Hello,

You left a message on my talk page saying I had violated 3RR in some way. I think you should look at the edits more closely. None of them, so far as I know, was a revert. None of them. I was trying to create a compromise, and I believe I achieved one. Please review the diffs more carefully.

I believe this is a bogus 3RR complaint from an editor who, in fact, was edit warring against me, by making reverts rather than changes. I think that he should be warned that it is wrong to deal with disagreements over content by fileing bogus 3RR reports.

For you convinience, here are the diffs in the report:

There should be no problem with this attempt (see also the edit summaries) to achieve the compromise, and I ask that you warn Minderbinder against such wikilawyering. Please also review the history of the page, and note that two other editors are edit warring, including Minderbinder, while I am not. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral redirect

Hi. Smee moved the list to "documents" as the cause was clearly lost on the other front. Please move it back to "reports", if you would - I do not want an edit war over a move to start screwing things up. Thanks. --Justanother 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed at length on the talk page. I moved it to "documents" as a concession to User:Jossi and as part of the discussion. If you look at the "proposal" section, there was a majority opinion for the move. Smee 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• How is 2:2 a majority either way? Lsi john 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your count is incorrect. Smee 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• I counted the number of agreed and opposed per your poll. You are using other opinions and that may be fine. I wouldn't know. Lsi john 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please continue discussion at relevant articles' talk pages, so as to avoid clogging up users' talk pages. Smee 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

1. "This Week at Weekender". weekender.co.jp. January, 2000. Retrieved 2007-04-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)