User talk:Jossi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:42, 5 September 2008

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

Skip to table of contents


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #57

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.

TomKat

Hello As you have made comments of the discussion page of the TomKat article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would contribute to the debate on it's Articles for Deletion page. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TomKat

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Please check the discussion about this tag, there is support for it, wikipedia is not POV. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About half of those people I contacted were random peer review volunteers, the others were random users that were editing political articles. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring on Barack Obama related articles. Warnings have been placed in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a formal note that you're close to being blocked as well based on 3RR. If you actually feel that the other edit is disruption then request page protection. Wizardman 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed to being blocked by thwarting an obvious disruption? I know the rules, Wizarman... Check that user's contrib list, and the possible SP account following through≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, an article as highly trafficked as Barack Obama, and in particular today, should be monitored closely for disruption and not fully protected. That is what I have done. Any issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your edit. I'm just saying, edit-warring is edit-warring. Granted, I'm sure you do know that, this message was admittedly more bureaucratic than anything else. I don't plan to block anyone since I'd rather not get involved in the matter. Wizardman 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "involved" until I intervened. I am filing a SSP report on these users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underoath

Jerry teps asked that page be unprotected. You had protected it on Aug. 18, for 10 days. Since it was going to expire anyways, I decided to unprotect it early, as it was a simple semi-protect to stop IP vandalism. Hope you don't mind, Maxim (☎) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Why did you make this page redirect to Sarah Palin. It contains considerable information not found on that page and the consensus is clearly against a merger? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplicated info. To do a spinoff article, see WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism on Sarah Palin article

On my talk page, you accuse me of vandalism. Please explain. I had deleted a paragraph about Ted Stevens' 527 group in the Sarah Palin article because this same info was duplicated in the subsequent section, two paragraphs down. I explained in my edit that I deleted the paragraph because it was "redundant". Also, it seemed not to be relevant to her job as "Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner", which is the section I removed it from.

I think the vandalism charge is serious and hope that this is the result of a misunderstanding. In this case, it's also somewhat baffling since I wrote most of the info in the Sarah Palin article about the relationship between Stevens and Palin, and, although I did not originate this particular piece, I simply incorporated into the rest of the Ted Stevens section. Tsunado (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will remove the warning. False positives do happen, my apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental?

Hi Jossi. In this edit of yours, did you mean to revert the edits in the section on the Dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner? Or was that an unintentional byproduct? It seems to me that we don't have to name so many people (e.g. McCann and Colberg) in that summary section. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, edits are so rapid there that I reverted your name additions in the shuffle... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just wondering. It's quite the wild west over there. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

You are probably not aware of it, but the protection was discussed on AN and there was consensus to full protect. Can you please undo your semi and join the discussion? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for someone to undo your unilateral and against-wide consensus unprotection of Palin on AN. Sorry. You can't do that and have it stick, no one admin can override consensus with tools. Buttons don't give extra authority and other admins had also supported protection. rootology (C)(T) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A short discussion does not mean consensus. Get consensus first, then protect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection restored

I've restored the protection for the moment, because there was a clear consensus, and good rationale, for doing so. I think we need to discuss over at AN if you still think full protection is unnecessary Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for protection and a short discussion is not consensus. Will take that discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will WP:IAR and unprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, I have no intention of undoing that action. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I will get blasted from undoing your protection, but so be it. Sometimes, once in a while, the need fotr WP:IAR emerges. This is one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta do what you gotta do - no ill-feeling from me :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi,

Please reconsider. WP:IAR should not be used in cases where there’s currently a clear consensus of good faith, intelligent editors against your position, and even worse, where there’s already a recent history of alternating admin actions. I just don’t see how this can possibly be anything but a wheel war. “Repeating an admin action when you know others disagree”. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that you might be wrong about this. What are we supposed to do? If there’s already been a long discussion, with about 14 editors in favor of full protection for 48 hours or more, do we have to restart the discussion because you disagree? Do we quite simply have to bow to your opinion because you’re willing to wheel war and others aren’t? How can we function if you’re going to claim “IAR” when consensus is clearly against you?

The system we’ve got only works when we respect consensus. If we all start wheel warring when we “know we’re right”, then we’re screwed. Convince other people first, then act. "Being right" should no more be a defense than it is in a content-dispute edit war.

Please restore full protection, per consensus, and if consensus changes later, then change it. Please. --barneca (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Jossi, I think this might be a time to hold back a little. My reading of consensus is that the page should be protected for now. Instead of warring over this, perhaps you can pitch in and help out with edit requests? Ronnotel (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sad day for WP, when we cannot afford people to edit articles such as this one because of disruption. Discussion is now at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of a more private note, I think you meant contesting not contending on the AE discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, when an admin fully protects an article, please discuss it with him/her first before reverting the action. Then, don't wheel-war. Not doing this is disruptive to the community and a misuse of admin tools. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, retracting, I didn't know an RfAR case was already being opened to examine your actions. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be petty, but did you get consensus for changing the template from banner to padlock? It was discussed on the talk page and consensus if any was for no change [1]. I don't have a strong opinion either way but i do think it dispiriting when admins flaunt an ability to edit according to their best judgement when no one else is afforded that opportunity. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:RFARB#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.285.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would call your attention Talk:Sarah_Palin#Protection_Template.2C_again. We've already had two discussions about the template and neither produced a consensus to minimize it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err NYB is welcome to use the talk page on this trivial issue like any other editor. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are welcome to sign-in. Please take it to talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Windows_XP#Third_opinion

Would you be so kind as to check the above talk page? My questions are languishing and I'd like to bring the issue to a close if possible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Leaving a message to inform you Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride, which may concern you. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

I think it would be best if you step away from editing that article if you're going to make edits that do not reflect a consensus. I know I know, something as simple as this shouldn't really require a huge debate, but, there have been two discussions about it already, both of which resulted in leaving the large tag - so what you did was against a consensus. I'm sure you want to avoid any drama you can, and being a party in an Arbitration case probably doesn't sound the greatest to you. As a side note, I think the small one is best, but being bold on that article isn't going to help things. Not now, anyways. Just a friendly suggestion; feel free to just ignore me. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good thing to avoid making claiming of consensus when there is none yet. See: Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly - there is no consensus (and there was not one when you made the change). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus about the protection that started this whole drama. So the point about the tag is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you stay away from all Palin articles for a few weeks? (if not all protection discussions?) Your actions in this area (amongst others) led to one ArbCom case already, this is just making things worse, really. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not going to listen and rush pell-mell into disaster, at least I did my part to hold up a stop sign. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see ... you are starting from the premise that I was mistaken in invoking WP:IAR and I still believe that it was necessary. Obviously, I will not do that again, given the drama this has generated. But to ask me to sit still and allow a procedural mistake of massive proportions such as invoking the Footnote arbCom ruling to protect that page, will not do, sorr. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.

Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
Your contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 ::::: Not really. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::Well, if you're not going to listen and rush pell-mell into disaster, at least I did my part to hold up a stop sign. *shrugs* [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
+::::::: You see ... you are starting from the premise that I was mistaken in invoking [[WP:IAR]] and I still believe that it was necessary. Obviously, I will not do that again, given the drama this has generated. But to ask me to sit still and allow a procedural mistake of massive proportions such as invoking the Footnote arbCom ruling to protect that page, will not do, sorr. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 == [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war]] ==