Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 6 January 2008

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #160

Cannot get enough of Misplaced Pages? Then join our mailing lists! A mailing list is a shared address for a list of recipients. Anyone subscribed to the list can send e-mail to that address and thereby reach all other subscribers. This is a convenient way to discuss complex issues with multiple people. There is a WikiEN-l list which is used for discussing policies and current issues related to the English Misplaced Pages, and there is Misplaced Pages-l for language-independent discussions. If you want to help developing MediaWiki, join Wikitech-l and share your ideas. For a complete list see m:Mailing lists.

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)

IRC cloak request

I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi Thanks. --~ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages

how are you, i was at the help desk and couldn't find stuff on taking down a photo just 4.11 Uploading a photo. I wasn't the one who took down the "Kjærlighetspar" photo on the intimacy page, i just signed out of my accout to post a myspace and youtube vandal pic hoping someone would take down all the pics seeing how none of the pics are specific to the intimacy sentences. it worked, but on the Stephan Sinding page the back frame and caption for the pict "Kjærlighetspar" ("Loving couple") is still up just like on the intimacy article. i think the pics were deleted by you since User:Jossi was the last undo, and a administrator. can you send some pointers on how to get rid of that backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages and not just take them down Please.

pict frame backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages

Stephan Sinding pages, thanks.

sorry for that long letter since you werent even the one who undid the last message. i didnt even notice the Click here to ask your question about editing Misplaced Pages on the New contributors' help page. if your the one who got intouch with User:Ziji to take down the back pict frame on the Stephan Sinding pages, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.95.66 (talk • contribs)

How do I ask for protection on (a) page(s)?

How do i ask for protection on a page?

Please reply on my talk page

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless .

Article Protection

Please can you justify how issues regarding the trademark is relavant to the Royal Bengal Airline article? Please could you very kindly review this again and cut this out? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airphantom (talk • contribs)

Can you please help me - again

Hi. On the Henry Keogh page there has been a debate going on about that there was no citing on whether he attended the school. One has been made, but how do we know that she isn't just lying to make sure it stays on? Surely there must be more than just writing something down and giving it an un-proven cite and that makes it able to be kept on. Can you explain to me more on that situation of whether you can just write it down or you have to actually have physical proof.

Sorry, some people must think they are you as they are asking a question I am asking you.

my edit to 2005

Might I point out the line concerning "Berticus the great"?

Your welcome is welcome

SociableLiberal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for saying hello.

deleted help page

hi,

I was reading something on help page. After few minutes i went to have coffe some body have deleted or edited the content in my help page and saved the page how can i get back that content. Please help me in doing this. Thanks and regards, Y.Naganaresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naganaresh (talk • contribs)

Mean Red Spiders

All the information is true.

David Humphreys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashumphreys (talk • contribs)

self published sources

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources."

stop removing sections without discussing them on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.208.156 (talk • contribs)

Exactly. Please do not re-add material that violates policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Thanks for Extension

Dear Jossi,

Many thank for giving me (and everyone else out there) until the eighth to get the citations in.

RE: Categories

Ambox type=serious

I noticed you'd changed the type of {{POV}}, {{original research}} and {{blpdispute}} from "content" to "serious" a few days ago. I've reverted the changes, since the consensus on Misplaced Pages talk:Article message boxes seems to be that type=serious should be reserved for things like imminent deletion (i.e. {{AfDM}}, {{dated prod}}, {{db-meta}} etc.). If you'd like to discuss this issue, I'd suggest doing so here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will raise the issue there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See also

• A Treatise on White Magic
• Initiation (Theosophy)
• New Age
• Seven Rays
• Roberto Assagioli

References

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:27, 11/4/2007

Jesus Army article

Hi Jossi. The above article seems to be approaching consensus. There is a question whether an external link to the site "Jesus Army Watch" http://www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk/ should be retained. I am not sure. It does not appear to be an attack site as such, but is an unmoderated site where strong opinions are invited. What think you? Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not appropriate as per WP:EL. See the section "Links to avoid" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks buddy, I've passed that on. Happy Winter Solstice to you. Rumiton (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, Please could you provide clarification as to the reason for the removal of this link. Both the talk page and the reason given within the edit relating to it's removal refer to objections to an associated forum at www.voy.com/110322/ - rather than the jesusarmywatch.org.uk web resource itself. If the continued inclusion of the link in not appropriate as you suggest by WP:EL , please could you clarify which part of WP:EL it fails to adhere to, as an amount of confusion has arisen amongst interested editors as to what grounds it has been removed, with other suggestions as to why it was removed already being put forward.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, your posts often seem to me vaguely threatening. This may be no more than an unfortunate choice of words but I suggest you pay more attention to the way you express yourself. Attempts at intimidation, if that is what they appear to be, will get you nowhere fast. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I'm sorry if the way i express myself is coming across to you in that manner. I fail to see how any of my contributions to wikipedia talk pages could be construed as either threatening or intimidatory, including this request for Jossi to comment further. If you could highlight where any of my comments have come across that way on my talk page, I'd happily discuss them further with you. Then we can leave Jossi to comment on the content, rather than the contributor here. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WIkinews

Hey Jossi - can I convince you to join us over at Wikinews, review our policies and current procedures, and help us strengthen the site and make it something where our interviews will add to the knowledge Misplaced Pages is able to draw from? I think a team of interviewers who undertake this work would be great for both the people who do them, and for the project as a whole. Give me ideas, suggestions, etc. Dave --David Shankbone 16:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do, David. Where are these discussions taking place? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The nascent discussions are taking place here: Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#I_want_to_help.3B_how_you_can_help_me_help. You can perhaps skip some of the talk that mentions things we already are doing (such as accrediting reporters and revealing our real names). Right now there are some good suggestions about how to institute "good practices" - start with Jimbo's comments on it. Then an IP wrote a list of items they think are good ideas. I agree with ninety percept of what they said. I personally like--thought I am not saying it is the best idea--some kind of "FA" esque article moniker that is something like "WP approved" as a source for Misplaced Pages. Mind you, I almost strictly am coming from an interview perspective, but there are some on there who think other OR articles should are also worthy. I am not disagreeing with that assertion, but I only really do interviews with notable people and I find it easier to argue this as a "no brainer". What I like about your perspective if you are warm to this idea, but also cynical. We need that perspective. Register and account over there. By the way, Wikinewsie can sometimes be a gruff, cantankerous lot - don't let it get to you (it almost caused me to walk off the project a few times). Looking forward to your consideration. I think this would be an exciting project not just for Wikinews, but for people on Misplaced Pages would like the chance to talk to people they care about to improve their articles. So, thanks. --David Shankbone 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already created an account there under same name, and will join these discussions for a while... I have been reading some of the pages there and I like what I see, but I am concerned that it will take too much of my time if I like it too much... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfC Text

Jossi, could you please stop moving the text for my RfC to the Comments section, or at least explain why you are doing so. You didn't with Runiton's RfC. --John Brauns (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The RfC is correctly formatted as per my change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the RfC should be the same as in Template:RFCbio_list. Your comments as well as comments by others can go in the section about involved editors. Same as in other RfCs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, this is not your RfC, but an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So why didn't you reformat Rumiton's RfC 'correctly'? BTW, 'Rumiton's RfC' is shorthand for 'the RfC raised by Rumiton'.--John Brauns (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What RfC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was your RfC, but Rumiton's comment was kept within the body of the RfC which explains why I thought it was raised by Rumiton. But my point still applies - why was the background information you and Rumiton supplied kept within the RfC body, and the background information I provided for the RfC I raised has to move to the Comments section? --John Brauns (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The RfC I raised was formatted exactly in the same manner, and as per protocol: (a) The description of the RfC as placed in the template; (b) The sources discussed; (c) Comments by involved editors; and (d) a section for respondents to the RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

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) 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hola Chicao -Wikinews

Jossi, I started a page to begin discussing principles and requirements for articles on Wikinews to reach so that they may be used as sources on Misplaced Pages. It's a start. What I don't want anyone to worry about at this stage is whether these things are done now or not. More, I want people just to think about what qualities a Wikinews article should have to make it a credible source on Misplaced Pages--mind you, this would create a class of articles on Wikinews that would meet this criteria, and unless an article meeting this criteria, it can't be cited. This is what I gleaned from the discussion. You can find what I started here (edit whatever you want. --David Shankbone 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reg warning given by you to me

I dont think that You have gone thru the website. Did u? Did u know that this Sect is a heart of Bhakti Marg? I think you do not have knowledge about BhaktiMarg mentioned in Hindu Religious Book Shreemad Bhagwad Geetaji. I did not spam the article with my links. You shall also notice that we dont sell any of the products on our website. Pl let me know WHY HAVE YOU WRITTEN THAT WE ARE MARKETTING OUR WEBSITE FOR PRODUCTS? Is doing pure devotion to lord , selling a product??? Pl reply. Thanks Dhawal Patel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallabhkankroli (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why have you reverted back all additions of previous link to an official sect website which are 100% related to the articles. give me atleast 1 reason that this link is not related with these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallabhkankroli (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines related to external links. You may also want to seek assistance form editors of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

Jossi,

You asked me to discuss my concerns with New Chronology; here is a far too lengthy account.

I was drawn to look at New Chronology (Fomenko), and related articles, by a recent discussion on the History of Astronomy Discussion List (HASTRO-L) about Fomenko's misuse of astronomy. The Russian astronomer, Michael Gorodetsky, recently (6 Dec 2007) said this about Fomenko:

Fomenko is a respectful scientist in mathematics, though not unequivocally (see the devastating review of one of his books by Almgren). Moreover he is a member of the Russian academy of Science. But in history he is definitely a pseudo-scientist with all characteristic features of pseudoscientific activity. And his activity in history was claimed pseudoscience by the same academy. Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published in Russia more than 60(!) books for wide audience on New Chronology. Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.

Gorodetsky's comments made me sensitive to the spam-like qualities of the article, with links to advertising sites and a large image of Fomenko's books (since removed).

The main advocates of the New Chronology appear to be closely related to each other and to the publisher. They are:

• Poggio bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Poggio Bracciolini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• and anonymous editor(s) who edit from NW France using a block of randomly assigned Wanadoo addresses in the range 81.xxx.xxx.xxx to 86.xxx.xxx.xxx). Sometimes addresses in this range have signed their postings Poggio or Franck Ver Stut, suggesting a close relationship between the Poggios and Franck Ver Stut).

The advocates of Fomenko's New Chronology have engaged in several actions

• Poggio Bracciolini has added links to advertising videos (described below) to the list of links in this article.

• Various advocates of the New Chronology have engaged in extensive defenses of the ideas of the New Chronology and attacks on its critics, peppered with occasional sarcastic comments on other editors.

• In the past, the advocates of the New Chronology had developed a fork known as New chronology fomenko, apparently with the intention of providing a space for advocacy of the ideas of the New Chronology.

What we are seeing on Misplaced Pages may be related to the wider use of the internet to advertise Fomenko's books. On YouTube a French user named mithec has posted over 100 short videos that are ads linking Fomenko's new chronology to a wide range of searchable topics, and providing price, web address, and toll free telephone number. A few of them have French titles despite their English language narration. These appear to be connected to the publisher since the name Mithec also appears in the web address of the publisher on the copyright pate of History: Fiction or Science?, http://history.mithec.com; Mithec Distribution Serveces is the name of the US distributor; and Mithec is listed on Amazon.de as the publisher.

If the French editor(s) on Misplaced Pages are closely related to the French Mithec on YouTube, we have an unacceptable conflict of interest that needs to be monitored carefully. In any event, a caution to the users mentioned above about WikiSpam and Conflict of Interest seems appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I would suggest the following; (a) file a report with the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam; and (b) Place a notice at WP:AN/I with the above information. I believe that there are sanctions/restrictions that can be imposed on these editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with CAM

I am having a problem on the CAM page. The lead is turning into long list of criticism of CAM. Criticisms and characterizations are being called 'definitions' and the lead is being written before the body of the text is. The main editor moving the article in this direction , Guettarda, spent some time lecturing JohnGohde on how to write a lead. He claims that the article is a 'medical article' so it should reflect the mainstream view and give little attention to the fringe. NCCAM is not a fringe org, but NCCAM's views are marginalized. Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors seem to be making progress there. Make proposals, discuss and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposals are being ignored. Anthon01 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then follow WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research

You wrote at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Original_research: "You may want to read Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position"
Thanks. I feel that that policy is either frequently misunderstood or (more likely) is incorrect, as written.
In any article which mentions topic X, quoting reliable sources about topic X is in my opinion wholly appropriate, and cannot be considered to be "original research" by the natural meaning of that expression.
People are advancing the position that Misplaced Pages should never cite sources which are not relevant to the main topic of an article. This strikes be as wholly unworkable and inappropriate.
Instead, we should have a policy similar to our definition of the appropriate style of internal linking within Misplaced Pages - "overlinking" and related policies. IMHO, the policy should say that if an article mentions "X", it is appropriate (and indeed strongly desirable) to cite a reliable source on X. If there are various divergent views about X it is appropriate (and indeed strongly desirable) to cite sources representing these various views. The policy should say something along the lines of "3 sources supporting a given position is plenty - more than that is overdoing it."
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is an established policy. If you have concerns with the wording of the policy, bring up your arguments at the policy's talk page: WT:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I encourage you to consider the commentary of other users at WP:AE regarding the previous lack of action regarding Darwinek. Let's not add this to that tally (I did not know he was getting away with breaking his parole before). Simply completely ignoring the terms of his parole seems to be a very bad idea and threats of action against everyone involved are unfair when, all considered, Darwinek has violated his parole. Charles 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the comments I made there. I am looking not at this for what is "fair" to you, but what is best for the project, and in my opinion, the project would be better served by all of you taking a hard look at the way you come across in your comments in talk, your edits, and your overall behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering we have an administrator on parole who has repeatedly violated his parole... Thank you? Charles 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been hookwinked

The glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms has a fifth column that periodically disrupts the page and tries to get it eliminated. This is a single individual who routinely inserts her unsourced POV and then complains about POV! Please, look at the history of this single individual's disruptions before backing her in the destruction of months of work by a number of individuals.Tim (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is a POV and OR minefield. It needs to be deleted, or massively edited for compliance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi -- if you keep up this vandalism I'll nominate it for an AfD myself for complete irrelevance. Stop the vandalism now. Revert it now. Enter your concerns for discussion with the other editors. That's the way of civil discourse. Are you a real person or a sockpuppet of Lisa's?Tim (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, honestly, you have a lot of gall to ask me to play nice after committing vandalism by colusion under the color of being "an administrator." As soon as I research how to report you, I will. Such colusion is the definition of "meat puppet." Had you "played nice" and discussed this on the talk page for a consensus, there would have been no colusion or vandalism.Tim (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Play nice: no more use of "collusion" or "vandalism", or "meatpuppet" in your edit summaries. In wikipedia, we Assume good faith. If you want to "report" me, you can do so at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed good faith on Lisa's part for a long time. Now I know better.Tim (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an unambiguous result for the previous AfD: "Fix the POV and NOR violations". You did nothing about it, instead, you reverted a good faith attempt to respond to the AfD results, calling it vandalism. So play nice or not play at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We worked for weeks to eliminate those, and Lisa insisted on deleting sourced material and replacing with her POV. Then she drags you into eliminate everything that was EXACTLY on her agenda. If you aren't Lisa, I don't know who you are. Which is worse -- being called a meat puppet or being the victim of one? I'd MUCH prefer the former. This vandalism wasn't good faith. It was simply vandalism.Tim (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am Jossi, a Misplaced Pages editor, that stumbled upon this article by sheer chance, and immediately saw its problems, and attempted to fix them based on the Afd results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was my attempt, which you deleted. Where is your attempt to fix the problems highlighted in the AFd? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We COLLABORATIVELY deleted the neutral column per AfD concerns, and COLLABORATIVELY added citations, and corrections based on those citations, to the cells. I had to step away for a while because the last AfD was too distracting from the work I'm doing on a galley proof to my book, but the collaboration continued right well on it's own, with Lisa spreading gasoline everywhere but no one stumbling in with a match. If you innocently stumbled in with that match, fine. But (let's call it good faith) efforts did not follow any principle of discussion or consensus. We were managing one troublemaker on our own and carefully adding citations even though she would remove them and replace them with blanket unsourced universal claims. Sometimes we'd let her have her way for a while in a cell so that we could continue improving twenty others, but we had no other way of managing her because no one is able to ban a repeated vandal. And then, poof, you came and months of citations were eliminated at the drop of a hat. Just ask yourself how legitimate it is for a person to be both actively making changes to a page and actively trying to destroy it at the same time? It's like kicking an umpire and saying, "See, baseball is a violent game!"Tim (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but you ought to attempt to see mine as well. You speak of "collaboration" but you polarize the discussion along lines of "we" and "her". You speak of collaboration, but no attempts to fix the problems highlighted in the AFD... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, just yesterday I defended Lisa's point in a difference of her experience versus cited references from Bikini. Bikini was following correct methodology, but still coming to a conclusion that all of the Jewish editors (myself, Slrub, and Lisa -- yes, Lisa) knew to be obscure at best. Bikini had no way of knowing. The methodology was correct. So, we were discussing the best way to resolve the problem when correct methodology somehow finds the wrong information. It happens. However, Lisa's methodology, giving universalistic opinion statements with no sources, was not the way to handle it. I was on the verge of suggesting the whole symbology additions to be out of scope on a terminology table. That would have solved the problem. What's Lisa's solution? Bear in mind that I agreed with her opinion on that cell -- her solution was to hijack the page. I'm sorry, but unsourced opinion statements and then hijacking (and dragging you along) is not the way to go about it. Us versus her? Well, when the subject is collaboration versus hijacking, yes. But the iniciting event was us (Lisa, Slrub, and myself) versus Bikini. The only clear problem highlighted in that AfD was Lisa, and there is no way to solve that. The only way to manage is to manage quietly and hope no well meaning but highly energetic editor doesn't stumble into the room and light a match to see what's going on. Lisa's conclusion was correct, but not her methodology. Bikini's methodology was correct, but not her conclusion. Misplaced Pages favors methodology, and hijacking ain't it.Tim (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Bikinibomb, on the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms talk page, has suggested that you are my sockpuppet. Considering that I'm fairly new here, and you're an admin, this seems unlikely to me, but I'm not sure how to go about proving it.

Also, I tried changing the page to a list, as you directed. Bikinibomb reverted it back to a table, and to a glossary. Is there anything you can do to prevent him from doing this? -LisaLiel (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're not my sockpuppet? Whew, that's a relief. Also, when the page is changed to a list, can we please have it be "List of Christian and Jewish terms", and not "List of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms"? The only reason they included "Messianic" (other than the personal obsession Bikinibomb seems to have with them) is that in the context of a grid, they could include them. Since that doesn't make any sense in the context of a list, the shorter name seems more appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That page, or series of pages, needs protection. The warring over where the article is located, what it contains, blah blah needs to take a pause for a bit until people can figure out what shape it should be in. Cross-purposes editing is just going to get everyone blocked. Avruchtalk 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch: There is an obvious problem with that article, as per consensus in the AfD. If there is no hope for editors responding to what the AfD called for, I will place back in AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there are ways to be a sockpuppet without literally being one. So if your big complaint is OR, when are you going to admonish Lisa for replacing my sourced statements from aish.com and torah.org, with her own OR that figs have no symbolism at all in Judaism, which is how all this started? If you are going to nose around in there you need to really treat the problem thoroughly. Dontcha think? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page. If you want to engage civilly, please do so. Otherwise your comments will be excised from my talk page. As for the essence of the problem, I do no give a hoot how many sources you add to an article: An article can violate NPOV and OR having each and every sentence sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, though we haven't communicated in a while, I'm very disappointed to hear that you've become a puppet for somebody named Lisa, since I had hoped that you'd be my puppet instead. Please let me know if you change your mind. Meanwhile, I wish you/Lisa a happy new year! Cheers, HG | Talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

rofl !!!≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Heh. Jossi, do you think you might be willing to reintroduce the AfD? They're clearly using this page as a playground for interfaith dialog, and slanting the content for that purpose. And... well, if you're not my puppet, do you know where I can get one? I've always wanted one. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with the article itself, as evidence by the reason for the last AfD, is that some people are freaked out to see Judaism and Messianic Judaism sitting side by side. Other than that it has the same problems most every article has on Misplaced Pages. It's expected that some will censor and abuse Misplaced Pages to enforce religious POVs and use every trick in the book to do it. Just don't expect civility from everyone else when it happens and is condoned and supported. You reap what you sow, as they say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi! You're a sockpuppet?? Man! And here I thought you were a Shoepuppet!!. What a disappointing start for the new year...luckily I have my new digital watercolor to keep my spirits up... :D Dreadstar † 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy 2008

Same to you and yours, Jossi! Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What a beautiful image..! Thank you! And a happy, joyous New Year to you too! Dreadstar † 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I painted it a few years back... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You got a great talent there! It's perfect, beautiful water flower floating on a gorgeous blue, dappled pond...and in water color too? Very nice, indeed. Dreadstar † 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not watercolor... Digital paint.... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Even better! I thought you might have photoshopped in the text over a pic of the painting...even the signature look like it was done by hand... Dreadstar † 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the original, I did photoshopped the greeting over it.:) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it ;) Happy new year to you as well. -- FayssalF - 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you and yours! Jayjg 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi, and all the best for the New Year to you, too. :-) SlimVirgin 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

that glossary

Is your objection principly to the table format comparing views? I tried to follow the AfD discussion but found it hard to follow the threads. What is your basic view_ Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If we compare views in a manner that has not been compared in published sources, we will be engaging in OR. If the comparison is a comparison made by Messianic Jews, then frame it that way to maintain NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I underfstand you correctly, that you had no problem when it was simply a glossary of alphabetized terms? Since then I have added terms. My question is, would reverting to an earlier version be a good thing to do? If so, I will do so - and add the terms I added. But if you and others would still take strong objection, it would be a waste of my time. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I see no problem with a glossary. My objection is about a comparison which is OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious. In Christianity and Judaism do you object to "By contrast, Christianity is an explicitly evangelical religion." in comparison to Jewish proselytizing? If there are no sourced statements specifically making that comparison, is it OR and should we delete it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So obviously I stepped in shit without realizing it. Just did an overhaul. Please fix it up and I will support your improvements, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This glossary is the most violent violation of NPOV I've seen in a long time. Make two pages or a table, but for goodness sake don't mix and match Judaism and Christian so that people can't tell who's saying what. "Christian" means "Gentile" to a Jew. It doesn't mean "a believer in Jesus." Although I agree that ultimately the Christian self definition is correct by all logical standards, that definition cannot stand on a page that lists Christian and Jewish terms together. "Christian" is a Jewish term meaning "Gentile." Separate the two religions, or delete the page altogether.Tim (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian does not mean "Gentile" to a Jew. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at article's talk, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please move the page to List (or Glossary) of Christian and Jewish terms

Jossi, the AfD is over, but the page still needs to have its name changed. It was never intended to be a MJ page. Tim only named it that frivolously. See this diff, and Tim's comment: "moved Glossary of Lisa's terms to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms over redirect: It's enough. In this case, Messianic Judaism = Lisa." Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss in article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with anon state of Connecticut user

Noticed you unblocked this state IP 159.247.3.210 a while ago; continuing to have problems with self-editing from it.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Misplaced Pages:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jossi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, So Where DO I Put It?

My only intention was a style guide to help editors avoid mistakes like this one:

Sl wrote: "Jeremiah or Song of Songs - namely, books that are both in the Hebrew Bilbe and in the Christian New Testament."

I wrote Sl separately. I hope you can see the problem. Jeremiah and Song of Songs are not in the New Testament.

So how did Sl make that slip? Simple. Jews call the New Testament "the Christian Bible." Sl's been in enough discussions now to have heard that the "Christian Bible" is really the "Old and New Testaments." But there's still the transmission problem going on.

Sl slipped up because Sl was very tired (note the time stamp) and meant to write "Old testament" but wrote "New" by mistake. I acknowledge my mistake and apologize for it, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The original table was grossly bloated by all the citation demands. I have no intention of dictating what a word MUST mean (like the current glossary is doing). My only idea was to show what a word COULD mean in different contexts.

Thus:

Misplaced Pages had the solution to the problem editors are still having. So, is there a place on Misplaced Pages to help editors disambiguate their own statements? No editor wants to be misunderstood. That was my only intention. I really don't care what people want to say. I only care that they communicate their intentions in a way that readers will understand exactly what was intended, and not something else.

Your current glossary does not do that. "Christian Bible" is "shared" and "controversial." Exactly how? And what's the point? Again, the table originally had the Unambiguous column because that was the whole point. The solution, if you will, to the problem that multiple faith collaborators have attempting to write on the same subject. The solution was the casualty of the first AfD. The biggest offender to the terminology problem are the Messianics. That perished in the second AfD.

So now the problem is invisible, and the solution is invisible, and the editors trying to collaborate are stumbling into the same problems the table tried to fix.

Since the table was a tool for Misplaced Pages editors, perhaps there is a different location on Misplaced Pages it should go (although, please, let it be abreviated like the above example without bloating it with unnecessary citations).

Am I angry? Yes. I'm trying, however, to help you understand the issue. The editors on your new page are falling into the same communication static that the table was resolving. So, as a problem Misplaced Pages editors have -- where do we put an abbreviated solution so that they can see it?Tim (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud. It was a typo. Slrubenstein aknowledged this, and changed it from "New" to "Old", which was what he'd meant in the first place. It was not a systemic issue; it was a friggin' typo. Give up, already. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As I was saying -- where do I put this tool to help editors avoid... "typos." My purpose is only to help editors say exactly what they mean in a way that readers from multiple backgrounds will not misread them.Tim (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As Lisa was saying - the "tool" you propose is inappropriate because in fact I know very well the difference between the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. The proper "tool" deals with the actual problem which is that editors get tired and make mistakes including typose. And the proper "tool" is the one you actually employed: you e-mailed me and alerted me that I made a typo, so i could correct it. Problem solved. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sl, as I explained on your page, it's a typo no Christian would have made, no matter how tired. Christians make different typos that Jews would never make. I can't go around proofreading everyone's typos on Misplaced Pages. Of COURSE you know the difference. My goal is not to educate, but to help educated people of different backgrounds be more conscious of likely slips. It's not inappropriate. It's essential.Tim (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No you miss my point - it is a typo no Jew would have made - except this one Jew, tired and writing in haste. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point. I disagreed with it, because I've SEEN it happen over and over and over again for the past 13 years of observation. I've also given Aryeh Kaplan and my own Rabbi as examples of the same kind of thing -- two men I have great respect for, but they are, still, human (as are we all). I've seen your typo. I've seen my Rabbi INSIST on using the term "Christian Bible." I've pointed out Kaplan's use of "Christian" when he meant Gentile.

Look, your glossary is a list to educate the uninformed. My table was intended to be a small summary to self-check the informed. The darned thing got bloated because it was trying to both educate and remind. I'm not saying that education lacks its place. Once you differentiated Jewish from Christian terms I dropped my NPOV complaint, didn't I?

Now -- I'll let you educate, and I'm asking to be allowed to remind. There is a need for both, because Misplaced Pages has readers (who need your education) and writers (who need my reminder). It has both, and it needs both.Tim (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tim, take it a bit easier, would you? Misplaced Pages, its editors, and its processes are not perfect, but mistakes get corrected easily when identified. You may want to read m:Eventualism. Most established Wikipedians have understood that it takes time and patience, and that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Relax! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi -- I'm trying to live and let live here. So, how about I wish your education effort well and you give me a spot for my reminder tool. That's fair, isn't it? I won't even disrupt or strong arm you. I'll simply communicate first, which is what I'm doing. I'm the one following the process here. I'm just asking you to respond to it. It's time to start.Tim (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the idea to split the glossary into two is sound. Judaism and Christianity are different religions. Having them together like that isn't sound.

BTW -- can you explain to me what the purpose of my table is? I don't care if you disagree with it. I'm just curious if you've figured out what you're disagreeing with. What I'd appreciate is a concise, accurate, expression of the purpose of my tool and a reason why editors don't need to be intelligible to members of multiple paradigms. Thanks.Tim (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Let's continue the discussion in article's talk, shall we? There are other knowledgeable editors raising additional concerns, that may benefit from this debate here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't do that, Jossi. I cannot participate on a page with Lisa peacefully, because I don't shut up very well when I'm being bullied. It's not good for Misplaced Pages to have the two of us on the same page ever again, because we are completely convinced that the other person lacks good faith. Now, in good faith I have no intention of destroying her education effort. It's simply not my interest to educate. I was making an editorial tool, which is something entirely different. Now, she may have no interest in an editorial tool (in fact, I hope she does not so we can leave each other alone). But I do have such an interest and am looking for a place to put it. It's not on Lisa's Glossary (I mean that without sarcasm; it's simply what she wanted, and she's welcome to it -- but I want a welcome for my entirely different effort).Tim (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask a second time -- can you DESCRIBE what my (abbreviated) table intends to accomplish? I haven't seen you DISAGREE with it yet because you've never addressed it.Tim (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have no interest in discussing this here, Tim. Sorry. That is what we have talk pages for, and if an editor rubs you the wrong way so much so that you are unable to stand it, maybe Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. Hey, you have to learn to edit The Holocaust with a denier ... this is Misplaced Pages ... where pro-choice and anti-abortionists edit collaboratively, so I am sure two Jews can find a way to do so as well.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to MAKE a talk page before we can discuss it. My article has nothing at all to do with Lisa's, and never did -- which is why Lisa had to completely eradicate it in order to make her own. Once I make the article, you're welcome to discuss it on that talk page. But discussing it on Lisa's really leaves me to believe that you still have no idea what my article was. For the last time before I start working on the kernel of the article -- do you even have an idea of what it is? Again, you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page once it exists. It currently does not.Tim (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My article ???? There is no such a thing in Misplaced Pages... Read the disclaimer at the bottom of this very page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't described my PROPOSAL for the article. In one line -- what IS it? As an admin, you can help it be correctly placed. But not if you have no idea what it is. For the fourth time, WHAT is it? If you disagree with it, WHAT are you disagreeing with?

And of course there are individual articles. Lisa's is Lisa's -- clearly.Tim (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think I have said enough... Again: There is no such a thing as your article. You can start any article you want, bu t expect that sooner or later it will be challenged (and that is a good thing!). If you need advice on where to put some material, ask more knowledgeable editors on the subject at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you have said enough. You helped eradicate something that you can't even describe. I'll help you out. YOUR glossary effort is an education tool. It instructs the uninformed. My proposal always was, and remains, a disambiguation tool. That's all. Most of the problems stemmed from the fact that people were trying to make it do both, which was never my intention, but I went along with it as part of the editorial process. You and Lisa forced the split. Okay, it's split (and yours really should be split again).

Your glossary tells people what words must mean as some kind of authority. My proposal simply helps editors avoid words that could be read differently than they intend -- and use another word that says the same thing they mean in an unambiguous way. It never was meant to say "all Jews mean Gentile when they say Christian." It was merely meant to say, "if you say Christian and really mean Gentile, consider saying Gentile if you don't want to be misread."

If that doesn't belong in mainspace, I guess I'll find out once I truncate the bloated colossus into something manageable and launch it.

Again -- it's a disambiguation list. That's it. Misplaced Pages LIKES disambiguation.

Now -- I won't vandalize Lisa's education. I'll appreciate her not vandalizing my disambiguation. That's simple. And it's not... ambiguous.Tim (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Wishing you all the best as well. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the gnome work on Laozi. It is appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ... we need to get to GA status, no? :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)