Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jossi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:56, 1 July 2008 edit24.196.146.119 (talk) Reason for edit← Previous edit Revision as of 22:34, 1 July 2008 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,577 edits You're going to be on trial: rNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 227: Line 227:
:I've been searching, and so far as I can tell, the IP is quite right about the image in ] ... it's fan art, not an official cover, and doesn't belong in the article.<br>] (]) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC) :I've been searching, and so far as I can tell, the IP is quite right about the image in ] ... it's fan art, not an official cover, and doesn't belong in the article.<br>] (]) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
:: OK. My mistake again... ] <small>]</small> 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC) :: OK. My mistake again... ] <small>]</small> 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

==Proposal==

I'm proposing to put you on trial for the Misplaced Pages crimes you perpetrated against me. I am giving you the chance now to do the right thing and resign as an administrator here on Misplaced Pages or alternatively promise not to use your administrative functions against me ever again. Just get an uninvolved administrator if you think my behavior warrants you behaving as police, judge, and executioner. I have started the process ]. I can move forward with ] if you'd prefer.

] (]) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:34, 1 July 2008

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

Skip to table of contents
Misplaced Pages ad for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User Warnings
Misplaced Pages adsfile infoshow another – #56
I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.
I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.
— Woodrow Wilson

28th President of the United States

~ Post new messages to the bottom of the page ~
~ Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here ~
~ Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassing me or others ~

Comments which fail to follow these requests may be immediately deleted

Please click here to leave me a new message. Tip of the day...
How to reduce or enlarge font sizes

Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small font sizes into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates. Below is one list of font sizing templates that have been tested and are available if needed:

Font size templates
Code for inline content Code for block content Size Result
{{small|text}}
{{smaller|text}}
{{smalldiv|text}} 85% text
{{resize|text}} {{resizediv|text}} 90% text
none none 100% text
{{large|text}}
{{larger|text}}
{{big|text}}
{{largediv|text}} 120% text
{{huge|text}} 180% text
{{resize|x%|text}} {{resizediv|x%|text}} custom varies
{{font|size=x%}} custom varies

{{small}} or {{smaller}}: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

{{resize}}: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Default: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

{{large}} or {{larger}} or {{big}}: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

{{huge}}: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Example: {{big|Will make the text here larger}} renders as: Will make the text here larger

Also, works with Unicode and IPA. Example: {{big|{{unicode|ὡ}}}} renders as: ὡ

To put this chart on your User page for reference use: {{font size templates}}

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Font size   Become a Misplaced Pages tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

ATT Question

Hi. You posed a question at the ATT discussion. Rather than troll the poll, I'd like to offer my answer here. I think that any time you summarize text, there is subjectivity in what is included, deleted, or clarified. Thus the result of a summary can be disputed as accurate, and the result rejected. Another issue is whether the summary is effective in adding clarity or brevity -- does it add value or just further instruction creep. I think that with the best of intentions we are developing too many conflicting and redundant instruction pages at WP. What do you think? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. I think that a summary can be done and is useful. Many editors think that just compling with the guideline of WP:RS is enough to add material to an article, when actually, you need in most cases to have attribution, as well as ensure that NPOV, and OR are also incorporated in editorial judgments. So I am for keeping that page as a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Interested? Jayen466 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Related: , plus old discussion Might be good to establish consensus on this issue, one way or the other (though policy appears clear). Best, --Jayen466 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I had quite enough of that specific user's WP:OWN, personal attacks, and publicly stated biased attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RPJ blocks

Jossi, you recently made some blocks of alleged RPJ socks as logged here. I don't know whether or not they're socks, but RPJ's ban expired last year, so my reading of the case is that it shouldn't matter. Does their behavior merit one year blocks even independent of that ArbCom case? Mtracy9 is requesting to be unblocked.--chaser - t 10:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country‎

I discussed deletions. No answer because there isn't any. Material is innuendo and/or irrelevant to the article's title. Italy's material was on processing possible cases, not on cases themselves. Student7 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet, material seemed to be well sourced. May I suggest you get a few more eyeballs by asking for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Seeing's how you dealt with the last sockpuppetry flareup from the Barack Obama article, would you mind taking a look at this new discovery? Shem 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look?

Hi Jossi - could you intervene here? Thanks Tvoz/talk 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I bet it would have been more enlightening to include the link... thanks Tvoz/talk 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And this background too: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership

I would like to "own" the article Copper Scroll. (Or have it owned by a similarly-minded editor). Here is my reason. After the initial thrill of finding it, researchers have been totally unable to discover what the heck the scroll refers to. Most likely they never will. True research, sensing a dead end, has stopped a long time ago. In retrospect, the poor folks copying it 2 millenia ago didn't really know either, but didn't want to jeopardize their heritage by not passing along what seemed like incredibly important information. The article is in pretty good shape, no thanks to me! It was pretty much that way when I found it.

The only changes that are made, unfortunately, are triggered by a rerun of a disreputable television program where pseudo professionals were paid to make outrageous speculation about the scroll, none of them substantiated by scholars. The reruns (when made) trigger a rash of "good-faith" but invariably spurious entries.

In the best of all possible worlds, the scroll should be permanently locked by an admin and opened only after someone convinced him that there was really something worthwhile to put in it.

Another way is to set it up for automatic (bot) revert for the article itself. The proposing editor could justify his reasons in the discussion, maybe convincing the "owner" that he had run across something really worthwhile.

I realize that this is a very unusual situtation. About the only one I have run across so far. Can this sort of thing be done? Student7 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really... This is a wiki-based encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What you can do is to ask for help at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

The sockpuppetry has been reported. It is an open-and-shut case since the style, wording, and processing of Davkal editing under this proxy is the same. Please see WP:3RR#Other exceptions. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reported, but not confirmed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very tempted to say something rude here, but I won't. Jossi, if you have evidence that this is not Davkal, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to go on WP:3RR#Other exceptions and will continue to remove any shilling that you do for this user. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be tempted to say something you will regret, and don't be tempted to continue refactoring comments. You have filed an SSP report, let it run us course. And let an uninvolved admin to make that determination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag?

Hmm, what's wrong with my tag? (I made it today, BTW.) I rather liked it. Been needing one of those for policy pages for years. Could never find a good one, and everyone reverted saying such tags weren't intended for (fill in the page), so I made one. ——Martin Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba GA/FA info

see this--Nemonoman (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block of ScienceApologist

Hi Jossi. I wanted to mention that your block of ScienceApologist has a bad vibe to it. I'm not here to defend his behavior, but I am here to suggest to you that, based on your history with him, you should strongly consider asking another admin to step in when you think SA has earned a block, in the future. The bad blood between the two of you is longstanding, bilateral, and manifest. Obviously, things would be easier if SA would comport himself in a more amicable manner. I have no intention of addressing this particular block at AN/I or any other forum at this time; this is simply a courtesy notice and a request that you consider involving other admins in the future when you think SA has earned a block (even if you don't consider yourself involved). For the record, SA and I have not spoken at all about this - I reviewed both of your actions and came to this conclusion without outside input. Antelan 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


I beg to differ, Antelan. At this point I do not think that there are any active admins that have not interacted one way or another with Science Apologist, and of those, very few are willing to call it when it is needed. I stand by the need for that block, and by its implementation. As with any other block, a blocked user is entitled to contest it, which Science Apologist did, only to be denied, so I do not see any issues here. FYI, I have nothing specific against this user, and certainly not "bad blood". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If what you claim about most other admins having run across SA is true, then my suggestion to you is only strengthened. Get uninvolved admins to participate. You may be speaking the truth when you say you have nothing against SA, but the perception is nevertheless out there, and not just because of SA's claims. With regards to behavioral issues such as these, such perceptions matter. By the way, my username is "Antelan", not "Anthelan". Antelan 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot manage the perceptions of others, Antelan. I can only stay true to my understanding of the admin role, and my experience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, when I saw Jossi's block of SA show up at the 3RR noticeboard, I thought it was justified. The problem was that SA was removing a Talk comment. Until that point it had been unclear whether any admin action was appropriate. I won't argue that this is a big deal, I'm just stating that Jossi's action was reasonable under the circumstances. Yes, with infinite patience, Jossi could have waited for an uninvolved admin to deal with it (and if it were up to me, I suspect I would have tried some peacemaking techniques first). Editors like SA who are under extreme scrutiny probably shouldn't remove other people's Talk comments, ever. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need to defend the block, but you should note that I warned the user three times before the block. Also to be noted, the user was edit-warring on the article itself as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I'm not asking you to defend this block; my rationale in messaging you here was always a forward-looking one. If you think you are both right and reasonable, then you should also trust that your peers will agree with your assessment of a situation. And here's another good reason to involve other admins: SA may respond better to them than he does to you, since he clearly thinks that you are an antagonist, even if you are not. In that sense, involving other admins may be a de-escalating action that you can take that will achieve the desired result without precipitating a block. Antelan 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear you. But I would argue that at this point in time and given the contention around this user's behavior, walking on eggshells is not the appropriate response. On the contrary. The community has been incredibly accommodating of SA's behavior, and not calling it when it should be called, or being so cautious as to not respond directly seems to me to be an unnecessary formality at this stage. Rather than indulging in a discussion on what could be done so that this user is more receptive to administrative actions, what needs to be done is to help this user to understand that such behaviors are not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Amen! It's about time someone did the right thing on Misplaced Pages. Thank you Jossi. 66.240.236.36 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Removing the talk page comments, a User:Davkal-sock has made, looks perfectly reasonable to me. So I beg to differ. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Army "sanitisation"

It is being suggested on Talk:Jesus Army that the recent round of editing of Jesus Army in which you and User:Rumiton were involved amounted to no more than sanitisation. Perhaps you could advise? Also arising from the current discussion there, is there any rule which says that controversial matters have to be discussed before editing, or is it merely good sense to avoid edit wars? I would appreciate it if you could look by, and leave your comments. John Campbell (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a few edits a long time ago, or made some comments in talk, not sure, bot certainly not "involved" :). If there are editorial disputes, it is best to discuss rather then edit-war. That is obvious. Best would be to pursue WP:DR via RfCs or mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Your advice at the time was very helpful! John Campbell (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC?

If you would be so kind, could you hop on IRC? Steve Crossin (contact) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for edit

I don't understand what you left on my talk page. I'm not a new editor, I just don't have a username as it is not required. You stated that my edit was not "constructive," but the reason for my edit was placed in the discussion page quite clearly. I consider removing unnecessary fluff to be rather constructive. Since you did not post a reason for keeping it, doesn't that make your change nonconstructive? I'm not interested in getting into an editing battle, because I really don't care that much, but please give a reason for keeping a section talking about parallels in a video game when it doesn't even pretend that Metropolis was an influence... wait! I got it, I will make a compromise. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 25 23 June 2008 About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

Volume 4, Issue 26 26 June 2008 About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

81.178.103.117

You left a block notice that gave no reason. He requested unblock. Yet the account has never been blocked, either directly or as part of an autoblock or rangeblock as far as I can tell. What's going on? I declined since you can't unblock someone who isn't blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That block is from 2007 ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi. I think you should extend the protection on Fatimah because the dispute might last for a while because of its sensitive nature and some users might go ahead and remove the 12+ sources and replace the section with one that that fits their belief system. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

I did discuss on the talk page a week or two ago and only got an incoherent reply: . So I've started a new thread... please reply with something more than "unneeded" if you're going to revert me to keep this language out of the policy. --Rividian (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The response you got from The Transhumanist was spot on. You may want to ask for clarifications, if you think it was incoherent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
It was utterly pointless to me... can you explain it without talking about zen and other nonsense? I'm really supposed to leave inaccurate, unsourced content in articles to "achieve Wiki-Zen"? I seriously doubt that's what Jimbo intended with his quote in that section, which says "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." --Rividian (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I have responded at WT:V ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Jimbo's comment was specific to WP:BLPs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No it wasn't... his comment says "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." So you're exactly wrong... if it was only about BLPs, he would have said it is "only true of negative information about living persons" --Rividian (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the quote. He refers to I heard it somewhere stuff. Is there anything in WP:V that does not allow you to challenge material and delete it if sources are not forthcoming? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The language "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" which was what I was trying to clarify. --Rividian (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fatimah

Please re-protect the article. User:Itaqallah went on and removed a large section using a dishonest edit summary. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

71.141.114.187

He's requesting unblock, and a couple of people at the talk page can't see what the vandalism is. Neither can I. Can you explain this? Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching, and so far as I can tell, the IP is quite right about the image in Radar (song) ... it's fan art, not an official cover, and doesn't belong in the article.
Kww (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. My mistake again... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm proposing to put you on trial for the Misplaced Pages crimes you perpetrated against me. I am giving you the chance now to do the right thing and resign as an administrator here on Misplaced Pages or alternatively promise not to use your administrative functions against me ever again. Just get an uninvolved administrator if you think my behavior warrants you behaving as police, judge, and executioner. I have started the process WP:ANI#Please tell Jossi to not deal with me. I can move forward with WP:RfArb if you'd prefer.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jossi: Difference between revisions Add topic