User talk:Jossi

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #3

“ 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...

Using templates

Templates are a type of page that contain boilerplate text that is intended to be displayed on more than one page in Wikipedia.

This Tip of the day box is an example of a template (there are several versions actually), and besides being displayed here it is displayed on many userpages as well.

Template names start with the prefix "Template:" followed by the page name. The main version of the template you are reading right now is called "Template:totd".

To display a template on a page, go to the target page, click "edit", and add the template's name (with or without the prefix) surrounded by double curly brackets to the page's source text. (The text you see in the edit box when you click edit this page is called "source text", because it is a lot like programming code, which is called "source code").

Including a template on a page in this way is called "transclusion". Here's an example:

To include the Template:Philosophy topics, type this at the end of the philosophy article you wish to place it on::

{{Philosophy topics}}

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Read more:

Help:Template  

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Perfect Master

Hello Jossi, When you find time I'd like to discuss the Perfect Master dmg page with you. I know you have worked hard on it. Someone tagged the article as needing work and I think I see why. I don't know if Meher Baba coined the word "perfect master" but he is the only one that I can verify used this precise term. Dmg pages I think are for multiple occurances of the same term. The way the dmg page is now it is more like the reader is expected to assume to know the meaning of the term from its sound, and then procedes to point to a concept that parallels that idea best from several traditions. My proposal is for an improved version of the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) article to replace the current Perfect Master dmg page and then have a link to a literal dmg page like "Perfect Master (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. Please discuss. I don't want to do anything without your approval. But I see none of these other articles are really articles on that term. Also the PM Baba page could be improved to include other references besides Baba's use, but with the same connotation. So I'm saying replace "Perfect Master" with an article and have also a dmg page. Tommytocker (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

contributions

Hi, because of the global accounts, I changed my user name from User:BigDevil (talk) to User:BlueDevil (talk). Can you do something for my contributions? Thanks.--BlueDevil (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

God Speaks

Hi Jossi, you have marked God Speaks for third party sources. I haven't found any and I doubt any exist to the present moment. What I have done here is simply describe the contents of the book. There is not an inkling of opinion or point of view in it. I'm afraid the tag will accompany the article for long times to come, as I don't see what can be done about it. Hoverfish Talk 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am effectively banned

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are... what Vassyana is saying is: I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Muhammad_Nasiruddin_al-Albani

I made multiple, atomic edits, each with an edit summary. Check the page history. How does this constitute vandalism? To illustrate, in Al-Albani's bio: I removed the word important (which is hotly disputed), replaced the word prodigious with prolific (arguably a more neutral term), and removed his specialisation in fiqh (Al-Albani's education was predominantly in Hadith, as per the Wikipedia entry itself). Please explain how any of this is biased or vandalistic. If anyone is being biased, it is User:MezzoMezzo with his constant reverts of my edits. -- 05:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently, this anon also tried to add a reference based off of a website called marifah.net. I know that site well - it's highly sectarian and far from a reliable source. They also have a huge ax to grind regarding the guy this article is about. It would appear to be that this anon is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise the fact that he doesn't like this al-Albani person. Given that they almost immediately accused me of being biased simply for reverting their edits, I have a feeling this could slide into WP:DE territory. Just a heads up, i'll be watching this myself though you're in a better position than I to make a judgment call on this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

'Anon' here. I do not intend to engage in any disruptive edits. It is simply my desire for Al-Albani's page to maintain a more neutral tone. How can a figure as controversial as Al-Albani not have any criticism whatsoever? It is clear to even the most casual observer that MezzoMezzo and others are fighting to maintain a one-sided representation of the late Shaykh. I invite you to review the history of the page to see who is really on a soap box here. In any case, as a gesture of good will, I have removed the link to marifah.net, and I apologise for any indiscretions on my part. I have, however, kept the mention of the debate and the book, and I will continue to dispute this utterly biased farce of an entry. Please let me know if I make any mistakes as I proceed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.163.18 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Former 'Anon' here, I've just registered an account. If the delay was bad form, please accept my apologies. I'm still learning the ropes :) Thirteen36 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that this is destined to escalate. Jossi, I hate to bother you, but since you've already taken note of this disruptive pattern i've responded to the issues in question here on the article's talk page. It might help to resolve this quickly if you added your thoughts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Related: [2], [3] 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 Wikipedia: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^(talk) 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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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^phi ☎ 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)