Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RDOlivaw (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 1 February 2008 (New section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jossi is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #283

Have you tried the Advanced options in your Recent changes user preferences settings? It requires a modern browser to work and is disabled by default.

Unlike the normal "recent changes" page, these options can summarize edits to the same page and let you dynamically expand and collapse the list items. For multiple edits to the same page, it also provides a single "changes" link which will show you a view of the differences (diffs) between these combined edits and the last non-recent revision.

After changing the Advanced options, the "Recent changes" list takes effect immediately and can be reversed by unchecking any option.

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

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.

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)

Abuse of admin functions

I reject your frivolous WP:POINT accusation

You abused your admin privileges in order to win a content dispute. In order to perform this move you had to delete Misplaced Pages:Evaluating sources, a page were you were heavily involved in editing and discussing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not abuse anything. And if you have any concerns about my actions, you are welcome to post a notice at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can reject the my statement about WP:POINT all you want. Anyone can see a WP:DUCK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

I noticed this note to you being reverted with an accusation that it was trolling. I am not sure if his accusations of admin abuse are true, or if your accusations of trolling are true, or both. But I would like to get to the bottom of it. Since I have asked Francis for his side of things, I am asking you for your side as well for consideration. Please be specific in why you think this user of 3 years is trolling you, citing relevant policies and diffs and I will look into it. Or if you prefer you can just forget about it.

Peace. 1 != 2 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you unreverted the note. Excellent. My services are still available if desired. 1 != 2 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see what is going on at the essay Misplaced Pages talk:Evaluating sources. Basically it is about an essay that was written by a group of editors, to which Francis Schonken added some material that does not belong there. I movde the material to a separate article so that his idea can be further developed, and he WP:POINT by doing the opposite. Your assistance would be most appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over things and have given my impressions here:, responses welcome. 1 != 2 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian religions

Hi, please refer to the ongoing debate on the discussion pages of Indian religions and edit warring by IAF. The debate has unfortunately degenerated into irrelevant stuff and has become a colossus waste of time. IAF has debased the debate into various wild claims like Jainism is a cult, Parsva is a vedic god, amongst other wild claims. While I am trying to keep the article as Neutral as possible by providing scholarly reference that Sramanas and vedics existed side by side, he is not ready for any consensus or for that matter, accommodate alternative views. I require your assistance. Is there any way to stop this silly arguments and make this article NPOV more if possible. I want to get away from this edit warring and make more positive contributions. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What is thy bidding

Master Jossi, the Jedi Wikicode appears to have The Force flowing through it, binding the Wikiverse together. Very interesting, thanks for letting me know!
Jedi Master Lord Dreadstar 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jim Kozimor

Thanks for the comment. However, my concern was whether I should delete the 3 revisions from the article history -- & if so, how to go about this. Despite the fact I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages for (mumble) years now, I rarely use some of the Admin tools, I don't know how to use them & -- short of experimenting on a Sandbox -- don't know know how to learn to use them. So far, about the only suggestions I've received is not to call subjects in articles I've protected from WP:BLP issues schmucks. :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the New Testament

Can you explain on Talk:Persecution of Christians in the New Testament why you think the article suffers from OR? A more explicit critique would be useful to us in fixing the problem. --Richard (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

QW

You opinion would be greatly appreciated in this matter. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

In your edit to the BLP policy discussion page, you said that a little known person with one negative event should be deleted. What do you do with something like the little-known politician Frank LaGrotta, whom I have just today nominated for deletion on those same grounds? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on article and deletion page. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Jossi, saw your comment at my RfA "pending response to further question" which question are you referring to? Jeepday (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Found the further question under question 5. Will be answering it. Jeepday (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look forward to your answer! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted answer Jeepday (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: J portal image

Hi. Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/Portal_talk:Journalism/Selected_quote/66 , the image fails fair use.

In fact whoever put up the image caused me to spend a whole ------ hour arguing with Cirt over fair use issues because the image was never supposed to be on that portal page and now the image is deleted.

I want an apology for that hour I wasted because you added the image I uploaded and it became a mess for me afterward. Basically I don't like messes like this that stem from misuse of images that are otherwise fair use, because I am the one who has to go defend my images, so I am disappointed. I would appreciate an apology for the fact that something you caused from misusing the image gave me a big mess to deal with.

cc: Cirt. Guroadrunner (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The image was absolutely fine, and I do not see any reason for deletion. If Cirt gave you a hard time, please complain to him/her. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More help needed

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

You commented on this issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Misplaced Pages surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Misplaced Pages article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RS

Jossi, please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Merging. Yes, again. :-) SlimVirgin 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Jossi, thanks for being so patient with me about tags. The old days, when NPOV was the only tag used for disputes, must be long gone now. I see you placed Template:Topheavy on the Cruise tell-all bio. That's clearly better than the needlessly provocative POV tag. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK.... but now we need to hear from you about what do you see as unbalanced... I read the article several times and IMO, it is pretty well balanced, very informative, and factually accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paramahansa Yogananda

Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for your neutral and well-thought edits that are helping to guide it in the right direction. ~ priyanath talk 03:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Palestinian people

Jossi, looked at the Talk page and I believe you are correct that History of the Palestinian people is a POV fork. It's constructed from several different articles. As a result, it also has multiple GFDL violations. While I commented Talk:History of the Palestinian people, I'd ask that you propose an AfD if that is the best way to handle this situation. (Or else, can the page and edit history somehow be blanked and the article title reused for a summary style approach?) Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 10:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to help?

Here's an example of where you can show evenhandness.

I have told Dlabtot (talk · contribs) to stop commenting on SA's talk page as it was obviously needling SA. He has not responded positively to this suggestion, to say the least. Continuing to harass a user after they have obviously stopped communicating with you as an attempt to rile them up is a violation of scores of policies. If Dlabtot continues to press SA, it would not be inappropriate for you to use buttons to make it stop. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly not. Admins are not policemen... All I and you can do is tell users to respect others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jossi (talk · contribs) already knows what is appropriate and what is not, but your crusade against me is duly noted. Dlabtot (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than be accused of disruption

and in light of the threats made against me, I'll comment here... this is like arguing that books written by physicists are not appropriate sources in regards to physics. I wish you good luck in your interactions with this editor. Dlabtot (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The type of argument you are referring to, "Physicists can't be trusted with physics" is only made when the outcome of applying that argument supports the "anti-fringe" agenda. Anthon01 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the goal is to remove all mention of homeopathy from wikipedia unless a non-homeopathy source exists that discusses the usage in making preparations. The bar has been raised so high, that the chances of finding a source are close to nil. So the Homeopathic Pharmacopœia cannot be used to describe the products used in making a homeopathic preparation. How does that make any sense. Anthon01 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Do you agree with SA's et al argument on his talk page that the references that you found are not RS? Anthon01 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the proper way to deal with uncited or poorly cited text was to post a {{fact}} tag on the article page? SA et al have been removing text on homeopathy instead of asking for a citation. BTW, I found a PubMed citation for Thuja. Anthon01 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Here is the cite properly formatted fopr that source:

Naser B, Bodinet C, Tegtmeier M, Lindequist U (2005). "Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae): A Review of its Pharmaceutical, Pharmacological and Clinical Properties". Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2 (1): 69–78. doi:10.1093/ecam/neh065. PMID 15841280.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been told that the "Evid Based Complement Alternat Med" the journal is not a RS for plants. Feels like a book burning. Anthon01 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Today, it is mainly used in homeopathy as mother tincture or dilution. Free full text version of same.

thanks

Thanks for unprotecting Homeopathy i think that weve gotten past most of our major disputes and i hope that we wont have any more problems like the one that lest to the initial blocking? Smith Jones (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		for all your work fixing up the page homeopathy and stoping it from being blocked foreverSmith Jones (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the congrats. :) And thanks for your help with the article. Getting away from policy discussion and back into other areas of the wiki has been very helpful for my state of mind and productivity. Hope you're well. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy 2

Jossi, with all respect, you may have stepped into a minefield with your statements about the lead. The problem is, there's some people who think the lead should be 100% criticism free, turning into a POV promotion of homeopathy. Some of the old edits and discussions are concerted attempts to do this. While there are other ways it might be balanced, your statement, as it stands, is fairly unuseful, as the people who want the lead (and article) stripped of criticism pounce on such things, derailing any such suggestion.

It would be more useful if you presented an example of how you would improve the lead. Adam Cuerden 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam: I don't know anyone who honestly thinks the lead shouldn't have criticism. I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Anthon01 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, also, don't use Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. if avoidable: Their latest volume has an article talking about how pyramid power reduces stress in rats , one claiming that quantum mechanics means that you cannot test homeopathy, because the blinding ruins the resonance between practitioner, "remedy", and patient , and other such things. - It's a very fringe journal. Adam Cuerden 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And its published by Oxford University Press. Anthon01 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<<< The lead should be a brief summary of the article. That is all I am suggesting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy PP

The lead is being embellish by editors who want more criticism. Page protection may be necessary here again. If you agree, then I recommend a rollback to the version that Sciencetizzle posted and you and I commented positively on. Thank you for considering my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Johannn Albrecht Bengel

Hello. As you are the creator of the article Johannn Albrecht Bengel (3 n's), I was wondering if you had knowledge of how this individual might be different from Johann Albrecht Bengel (2 n's). The birth+death years and interests are the same, and all external book references refer to 2n Johann. Normally I would just redirect to there. But, since the 3n article was created more than two years after the first, since it is linked to by a third article, and since the 3n version has a See also link to the 2n article, I thought perhaps there was a meager chance that this Johannn chap was some weird, lesser-known, doppleganger of Johann and the identity should be verified. What say ye? Thanks for your help. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ... probably the same person. I will look into this tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

This biography article on a prominent homeopathy author that I've known about for several decades has become a battleground for those trying to discredit homeopathy. Just a few weeks ago, almost all the content was deleted. Yesterday I added a relevant sourced paragraph, and twice in the last 2 days that paragraph has been deleted. Your always helpful input would be highly appreciated. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of Dana's bio article has again been deleted! Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already commented there. You may want to engage editors there in finding common ground, and if you get stuck, ask for help via the dispute resolution process, starting with an WP:RFC. Be patient, you will need that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of the article has again occurred, with edit notes such as "Nuking" and "nuke" to describe what has been done. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Why have you single me out? OrangeMarlin and TableManners have both reverted three times after you unprotected the page. In effect you are applying a one revert rule, regardless of whether a pledge is made. Is there an added advantage to signing on? Anthon01 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It would demonstrate good faith on your part. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. How about the repeated reverts (3 reverts each within an hour or so) of OrangeMarlin and TableManners? Anthon01 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this issue going to be handled in an even-handed manner? Now fyslee has two reverts? Anthon01 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a policeman ... but I would do the best I can to make sure that debate is orderly and that there are no disruptions to the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Within Misplaced Pages, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Misplaced Pages article. Does this have anything to do with adding text on homeopathy to the thuja article? Anthon01 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:ELasRef

A tag has been placed on Template:ELasRef requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedied as orphan. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you please close a DELREV for me?

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 26#Greg Benson. Thanks. JERRY _contribs 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kylu beat me to it.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not editwar

and please do assume good faith. As we have now found, the link you were adding was incorrect and shouldn't have been there per WP:BLP --88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring... Please discuss in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality trumps quantity on google

Or do you disagree? David D. (Talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hohum

. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

? Sorry, could you clarify what this about? Do you need any assistance? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry I missed the (lynching) party

I thought your nomination of Category:Pseudoscience for deletion, or re-lilsting as a list, had a lot of merit. I am sorry you felt forced to withdraw so soon. There is a lot wrong with the "Pseudo-" situations (and attacks) here at WP.

Category:Pseudoscience (C:P), is inherently POV and susceptible to being used as a vehicle for continuing non-scientific, often unfair, and sometimes (potentially) libelous attacks that are all too prevalent at WP. Although I am long familiar with the QW PS POV & promotion campaign here, there are a couple of things that I see are truly shocking to me at C:P, now.

I think that current situation here is akin to the KKK being allowed to establish WP's labeling of various racial and ethnic groups, where after all, there are WP:V sources sometime in the last two centuries, all the while screaming about its self-supposed authority and purity. For an example of C:P's BLP abuse, if not outright defamation and libel, see the inclusion of Dr Stanislaw Burzynski, the controversial peptide chemist & entrepreneurial physician-scientist (MD, PhD/D.Msc) who left the Baylor medical school (long considered a high ranked med'l school) facualty after refusing to give up his patent rights, and previously vigorously discussed at length by medicinal chemist (with a decade+ in mainstream chemotherapeutic pharmacology) and professor emeritus at USP, Watching the Watchdogs by Joel Kauffman (PhD, MIT). Another example of C:P being a POV vehicle is "Category:Pseudonutrition", a QW-style neologism, existing mostly at Wikipeida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RDOlivaw Homeopathy probation

Hi. I'd like to know why you've pinged me for the Homeopathy probation. I am clearly aware of this as I have used the tag, but your addition to my talk page left me none the wiser as to why I'd been added. If you could give your reasons I'd be most obliged. I was thinking of adding my own name myself, but not because I think I have behaved inappropriatly. Thanks --RDOlivaw (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)