User talk:Jossi/archive7

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores ^Talk 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing My User page. My spelling has never been any good on a keyboard. But at least now you know where Im coming from, (assuming you've done more than spell correct). Please, however, judge me on my arguments and not on any predjudice you may have already built up against me. THanks! --Light current 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will surely do. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Hi , This is Eric Lerner. Joshua Schroeder is back and made a total wreck of the plasma cosmology article, eliminating half of it. Can anything be done? He changes things minutes after I reinstate stuff. He seems to have unlimited time and basically he is just censoring the article so people can not find out about the subject. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.204.54 (talk • contribs)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Let me add that I have looked at JS's behavior on other articles and the problem is the same. Instead of adding comments like"but critics say..." he eliminates material that advocates or gives evidence for a position he disagrees with. This censorship negates wiki's strengths. I think that either he should be clearly told that he can only add, not subtract, or the article should be reverted to the point before he started censoring and locked in place.Alternatively,he should just be tossed off of wiki. He is clearly wasting a lot of people's time._Eric Lerner200.83.204.54 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not the way Wikipedia works. Yes, sometimes we have to deal with editors whose attitude makes it a pain in the backside to edit articles, but that is the price we pay by having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't testing, why was it removed? --71.224.68.150 04:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you re-added an image to Nelly that is tagged as a copyright violation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. I mean, how was it more of a copyright violation than anything else on this site? --71.224.68.150 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read: Wikipedia:Copyright ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot if I objected or neutraled to your adminship, but either way you proved me dramatically wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hipocrite. It does not matter what you voted. You have no idea how much I appreciate your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could please you tell me your reason for reverting my very minor edit to this page especially at a time I was indisposed?. Looking at the history it doesnt appear you have had an interest in it before.--Light current 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we were discussing WP:NPOV and WP:V as as I did not know you until that time, I checked your contribution history to see if I could find an explanation for your position regarding policy. I found that article in which you added a section label that was not needed. I shoud have explained the reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comandante has removed the name La Seguridad del Estado from "Cuba". When I asked him a question in his discussion page - he removed my question. Xx236 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estimado Jossi, me dirijo a usted porque he visto que en una ocasión ha editado la página de discusión de Galicia (Spain) y porque su idioma materno es el español (me resulta más fácil comunicarme en español que en inglés). Soy administrador de la wikipedia en gallego y he descubierto casualmente que la página De Lemos Clan es un invento (un articulo de la prensa gallega advierte sobre lo infundado del texto). Aparentemente para quien no conozca la historia de la zona puede pasar por una página real, pero no lo es. En la página oficial del concello de Monforte de Lemos puede verse una reseña de la historia de los Condes de Lemos (sobre quienes trata la página). He propuesto la página para el borrado, no obstante me parece que no he sido capaz de transmitir que el artículo es falso. Además tengo la sospecha de que el resto de las contribuciones del usuario que creó esa página sean también ficción pero no las he verificado (en el caso de la página Monforte de Lemos he comprobado que otros usuarios ya han corregido la versión original) . Le ruego que dirija su atención -si es posible- al artículo citado, si como afirma el usuario que lo creó es real habrá alguna fuente fiable que permita confirmarlo. En mi opinión es del tipo de artículos que puede perjudicar la credibilidad del proyecto. Muchas gracias. Un cordial saludo. --Prevert^(talk) 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Si, estoy de acuerdo. Ya le hechare un vistazo. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Jossi, could you take a look at Talk:Plotinus? — goethean ॐ 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Smacks feeding hand) You got it. :) Jim62sch 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Doing that is a losing proposition... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who deleted the text you restored (complete with grammatical error), but I had been glad to see it go. The statement is not complete nonsense -- no big compilation can be perfect -- but it is the opposite of the view of Marquis among librarians (who are still willing to pay extremely high prices for those volumes) and people who do biographical compilations, like myself.

Sure, a complete piece might perhaps mention that some critics have found people who didn't merit inclusion. Possibly the series has declined in selectivity in recent years -- most of my own work has been with older volumes as far back as 1901, and "Who Was Who". But as it stands, the article is extremely slanted.

I'm not interested in getting into edit wars, so I didn't want to redelete the text (or move it to the talk page) without consulting you first. Kestenbaum 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I copied your nice headnote (about locus of replies) to my own talk page. Thanks! Kestenbaum 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Marquis Who's Who . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committee has imposed the following remedies:

1. Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
2. Reddi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. Each ban shall be recorded together with the reason at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. A notice shall be placed on the talk page of the article and Reddi shall be notified.
3. Any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban or probation in one year increments. Any extension shall be documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Violations of the remedies imposed on Reddi shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are automatically recorded at Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but should also be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committe, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been acccepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Hi, Because the main mediation page has grown so large, I have added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source. Please use the page only for discussion of using Nagel as a source. I have given some of my opinions on the page already. Please give yours. It is my hope that editting work on the main article can proceed at the same time that specific issues, such as using Alexandra Nagel as a source are discussed. --BostonMA 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andries pointed out that I had not created the Nagel article in User space as I ought to have. He has moved it for us. Please take note. --BostonMA 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites. Please continue to discuss matters on User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source as well. --BostonMA 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note to me on this subject. I'm sorry, I thought I was contributing to the body of knowledge on this subject. There were a lot of holes in the Jefferson Airplane autobiography that I thought I could fill. I didn't mean to do anything wrong by Wikipedia's standards. I don't think I offended anyone, violated any copyright, or wrote from a biased opinion, but if I did, I'm sorry. In the future, I'll refrain from editing any more articles. MCB (2/11/06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.85.3 (talk • contribs)

By all means 'edit more articles... just pay attention a bit on how this project works. I will leave some pointers inj your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*poke* You removed [1] this entry without an edit summary, as opposed to "blocked, list NOT EMPTY" or something similar. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did on the previous edit, but realized that I did not remove the entry. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Hi, Jossi. I clicked on Prem Rawat from your userpage, on the "What's this?" principle, and was struck by how the Lead seemed to be a battle-scarred compromise between opposing factions, rather than a pedagogical introduction with the reader's needs in mind. Can't reconstruct what I was doing on your page, though... I was looking for the talkpage, at about five removes, to see if somebody had responded about something, somewhere, but it's gone. I do have more to say about the article, but am too busy IRL today and tomorrow. I'll be back tomorrow night, probably (tomorrow afternoon to you). Bishonen | talk 07:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen. IMO there is too much testosterone here at WP, and that sometimes is not conducive to colaboration. I would argue that if more women were editing WP, if would be a mcuh better place to collaborate and edit :). Your comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was planning to, especially because NPOV isn't just facts, citing, etc, but is also style — words and their implications — and a lot could and should be done on the score of encyclopedic style here. People tend to be less aware of that than of quantifiable matters, and the reader — the untrained, non-rhetorically aware reader — may not even consciously notice it, but it deeply affects reader response, as it is deeply affected by the writer's feelings. There's even stylistic POV, probably unconscious, in some of the subheadings! (Or can you imagine Rawat's father's mantle making an appearance in a Britannica heading?) I have ideas about the Criticism section, too, I don't think there should be a separate one. But right now I feel I'd better be doing something more constructive, like writing an article of my own, as Prem Rawat seems too guarded and policed to be noticably impacted. You've seen the uproar that's by now resulted from my (IMO) pretty meek and obvious NPOV'ing of the Lead section. And that was just the Lead, a small fraction of the whole. I've just been reverted (again) by Momento for an IMO very bad reason, and am altogether beginning to see how the article can be still that POV after 13 talk archives or whatever number it was. :-( Anyway, I'll see if I'll be back, it's a question of time and priorities. Sheesh, I should be doing some prep for tomorrow right now. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the pertinent comments. Nothing like a fresh pair of eyes to improve an article. I will try to lead some changes based on your feedback. As for the lead section I think that it is getting there. There is hope... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, you have made several requests to be able to contact me privately by email. I have resisted your request so far, and will probably continue to do so. You may believe that you have information that would be very useful for me in guiding the mediation. That is quite possible. I, however, need to balance the risk that I may be making mistakes which your information could easily correct, with the risk of parties to the mediation becoming apprehensive about the use of a channel of communication to which they are not privy. The latter risk is more clear in my view. I might be woefully mistaken in my choice, but I am not prepared to open up a private channel of communication with you at this time. I'm sure you understand that we all need to make choices and live with them. --BostonMA 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I leave the mediation in your capable hands. Drop me a line if you need any help with sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jossi, thanks for your message in my talk. Unfortunately your automatic vandalism script/fairy/room full of monkeys fucked up and reverted what was a valid edit. I even discussed it in the article's talk page. Just a heads up.

Love, 70.237.90.43 05:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an automatic vandalism script. It was done deliberately. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you, made a horrible mistake in judgement. The image I removed from the article is copyrighted and according to Wikipedia's rules it does not qualify as "fair use". Please remember, as you continue to ride your horse in wikipedia's calvary of vandalism fighters, to actually pay attention to stuff before you decide to just revert it.

70.237.90.43 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help on the Opie and Anthony page. I am new to wikipedia and am not totally up on formatting and submission guidelines. However, I would appreciate any help in monotoring this pageas there have been many many vandalism attempts. I would in turn help to monitor any pages you have interest in, as I would like to expand my role beyond the O&A page on Wikipedia. I have tried to use the recent changes client but someone always gets there first!

My edit was not vandalism, and just so you know how nice I am I edited the formatting of your post above. 70.237.90.43 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Really? If that is not vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opie_and_Anthony&diff=39840980&oldid=39839755

then I don't know what is. Thank you for being so nice. (Count Zero 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I already explained in Talk:Opie and Anthony but since you don't seem to read it I'll quote myself: "I did not do that on purpose, I accidentally hit the "Save Page" button and pressed stop right away. That is why I corrected my mistake right away. By the way: please learn to sign your comment, mighty mysterious person you. I have a hunch you might be "Angry Typing Guy." 70.237.90.43 06:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)" 70.237.90.43 06:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, I see that your Wikistress has gone up and that you have gone on Wikibreak. I hope that I have not contributed to your Wikistress. I did not mean to drive you away from the mediation, but only allow the parties to have some say in your role there. I am concerned that recently Andries has been less active in the mediation process than he has been in the past, and I wanted to ensure that conflict with you was not an issue with this. Although his comment was "why did you invite Jossi?" he actually may feel more comfortable if you were a party. He hasn't expressed himself one way or the other so I don't know. I want you to know that I have nothing but friendly feelings toward you, and that if I have been rather impersonal, it is only because of my role as mediator, and should not be taken as a sign of dissatisfaction with you. I say all this knowing that you were the recipiant of a personal attack on another page. That undoubtedly played a large part in raising your Wikistress. But I also may have contributed, for which I apologize. --BostonMA 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, but this was not related to the mediation. It was relate to ther PAs that you refer to. I withdrew from rthe mediation because I realize that I was hindering your work and manybe meddling too much in the process. You are doing an impeccable job, and I will be following your progress from the slidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hello Jossi/archive7, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk

Thanks for the welcome comments.I guess should get around to getting a username. Right now I need to attend to some pressing personal matters. Hope to be back soon. Benjamin 208.190.71.148 21:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a nongeneric reason for my blocking that i personally feel was completely asinine. Parys 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ys, I can. Uploading multiple photos that where obvious copyright violations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future. Martyman - 09:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking User:Welcome_to_Heaven. Could you put a block notice on his/her talk page? Rlevse 23:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great!Rlevse 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked User:Dell2400series with an expiry time of 48 hours. He was just blocked for a period of 24 hours two days back for adding fake porn pics to articles several times. I think 48 hours is too short. Could you unblock him and then, block him for a longer period, say one month? I didn't want to undo your actions as I felt it more appropriate to intimate you of the situation and leave the final decision to you. Please reply on my talkpage, if you need to reply. TIA, --Gurubrahma 10:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, thanks for catching that...I forgot to run the text through spell check. (Oh, I do actually know how to spell "sense"...can I plead "brain-cramp?  :) Jim62sch 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have misunderstood the situation. The edit war on the Matt Leinart article was not a legitimate content dispute. Please consider Davis21Wylie's reverts on the page to be reverts of vandalism. There has been a problem at that article for some time with trolls inserting unsourced information that the subject of the article, Matt Leinart, is gay. The trolls had already been dealt with, including Cooldc19 already having been blocked by ESkog before you became involved in the situation, and the page protected. Please unblock Davis21Wylie as soon as possible. He was acting in good faith reverting the edits of a troll.--Alhutch 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reverts and it is my opinion that these reverts were not reverts of vandalism, but a content dispute. Read also the edit summaries by User:Davis21Wylie. If there are cases of vandalism, your recourse is to place a warning at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to disagree with you. Have you read the entire talk page of the Matt Leinart article? This is most definitely not a content dispute. People (two anons and Cooldc19) keep inserting the edit that Matt Leinart is gay. This is not true, and not sourced. No matter what the edit summaries, Davis21Wylie was keeping this information out of the article. ESkog blocked Cooldc19 3 and 1/2 hours before you did. I don't think you understand the situation. We've been trying to keep the "Matt Leinart is gay" stuff off that article for a few days now. Blocking Davis21Wylie amounts to making the vandals think that they actually are in a content dispute and are in the right. This is not a content dispute. Please consider unblocking Davis21Wylie. He was acting in good faith, and you blocked him almost 4 hours after the fact without any warning. How was he to know that you thought what he was doing was wrong? The 3RR does not apply in cases of pure vandalism, which this case is.--Alhutch 04:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about the attempts by anons and user:Cooldc19 to add material without sources. Nevertheless, the tone in the talk page and the comments made by Davis21Wylie in the edit summmaries are not the way to proceed in these cases. If you want to remove the block, please go ahead. Just make sure that you explain to that user that regardless of vandalism, there is no need to escalate things by feeding the trolls, and that there is always semi-protection to deal with IP vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Davis21Wylie. Perhaps you would like to leave a note on his talk page about your concerns about the edit summaries? I agree that they may have been sort of inflammatory and troll-feeding. I think you would be better able to word it than I would. Thanks for your understanding and for keeping it cool :-)Alhutch 04:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jossi, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you protected a version of the article that erased numerous references to reputable sources such as John Paul II, US Congress, declassified Soviet archives, and others. While I understand your reasoning for protecting this article, the version that contains factual references must not be removed. Please consider how many people may look at this article and get a wrong impression that Wikipedia encourages hiding the facts about the tragedy of the Holodomor. I ask for a careful consideration of this issue.--Andrew Alexander 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was done because there was an edit war going on. When pages are protected for this reason, I cannot make value judgments of which version is the correct one, and that is what I always protect the wrong version. Page protection is only temporary, so roll-up your sleeves and engage the other editors in a productive discussion so that the protection can be removed and editing resumed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the information coming from reputable sources be deleted? This isn't a simple question. If you read a little of the debate raging on that article discussion page, you will see that some people don't change their opinions easily. No "rolling up of sleeves" helps here. Some people simply want some information to be deleted. I can't influence their position by providing more information. The only answer received again and again -- information has to be erased. Please reconsider. It would not be a big deal has this article not touched on the subject of the death of millions. It makes me sad that this subject is treated as a burden to Wikipedia instead of protecting the readers' right to know the basic facts. Should the Nuremberg tribunal be erased? Someone would like it to be. Should we "roll up our sleeves" and fight it out with those people the right for that information? Should it be this hard to defend the obvious?--Andrew Alexander 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone keeps deleting sourced material, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a large number of "spelling" corrections recently to the Human article. Be aware that British spelling is not incorrect, it is different. Diff: [[2]]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. My understanding is that we use American English spelling in en:WP. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style reads Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I was unaware that Brits were not human. My error, I am sure. I must immediately inform my British friends of the issue; what shall I tell them they are (rather than human)? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was funny... I did not mean in that way... Feel free to revert to British spelling, if you feel strong about it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you could see the humor... no, I don't feel strongly enough about it to go change it all back, however it is a small soapbox of mine when Brits change American spelling, and vice versa, where it is unecessary and sometimes inapproriate - and adding the insult of "sp" as an edit summary cannot cause good-will. I merely wanted to bring it to your attention, and have done so. Thanks much, and please think twice next time before automatically "correcting" spelling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall and I will. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't be so quick to revert me please 66.98.130.204 05:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your edits rather than remove content unilaterally. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this user appears to be included in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa, and has left at least one other message on your talk page, [3]. -Will Beback 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this sock puppet for one purpose and one purpose only. To chew you out. Since you covered up the AWM's previous message with the deceptive comment

deleting comments from anon

AWM is about as anonymous as the President of the USA. You know exactly who and where he is in the real world. Go mark this IP with that Pinktulip template. Go block this account. Go add it to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Amorrow. Go cover up this message with some other deceptive comment. Go pretend to be ready to engage me in dialog just so that you can cut me off and hit the OFF switch on me more effectively, and then go do the same to others. As far as I can tell and until you show me otherwise, that is all you are good for. Excellent Wikipedia admin material. Efficent. Neat. Just please stay away from me until you grow up and learn to engage other men in manly and genuinely respectful way. -- SandraBalmer 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (and, of course, AWM)[reply]

Jossi, do you mind if I nom this for BJAODN? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to stop saying that you engage in using double standards in your editing behavior when I think you are really and clearly doing so. You can report that as a personal attack if you want to. Andries 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am just compiling a list of diffs to report. Thanks God for diffs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, again, for making comments on edit summaries... If you'll notice, I even kept cool this time for 12 (12!!) reverts, but it got to be too much. I even posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but no actions were taken for a long time, until User:Alhutch finally stepped in, having seen the carnage on the "History" page. Should I practice slow reverts from now on, not giving them the satisfaction of an immediate response? Alhutch also told me I should just alert him at the first sign of User:Cooldc19 or one of his many sock-puppets, and he'd take admin action, so these edit wars should be a thing of the past. Anyway, I just wanted to say 'sorry,' that I was trying to be a good Wikipedian, but these #@**% vandals got the best of me again. - Davis21Wylie 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vandalism is a problem but in my experience, the best is to do two reverts and then report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, otherwise you fall in their trap. Admins taken care off these requests for intervention quite rapidly in most occasions. Note that some vandals enjoy the attention and feel great when we get upset about it. Stay cool and don't engage them, that is what I recommend. If this is persistent we can place the page in semiprotection for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the block on 158.136.173.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I should note that this edit originally was made by Wisher (talk · contribs), who blanked a warning by Yamla and replaced it with "I have issues with how this whole thing is run, but whatever." Later, when I warned this user that blanking one's talk page is considered "uncool", the response was "Umm... thanks. I don't really care but thanks." (To the user's credit, this was then archived rather than blanked.) I bring this up because Wisher (talk · contribs) identifies as "a computer scientist currently living in New Hampshire." IP 158.136.173.23 just happens to trace to Plymouth State College in—you guessed it—New Hampshire. Hell of a coincidence... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your question about the quote by Kranenborg. Yes, it is accurate what was written down on my talk page that I copied here for convenience with minor changes in the translation, shown with strikethrough. I would rather not use it as a source because it falsely suggests that immediately after the family rift Maharaji did away with the trappings. But if you insist to use it as a source then, I have to admit, I have no good reason to object to it. Andries 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Kranenborg, Reender "Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht", Kampen Kok cop. (2002), p.178 ISBN 9043504939. "Zij [Mata Ji, Prem Rawats moeder] onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader'" (translation: "She[Rawat's mother, Mata ji] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued on independently, with less claims pretensions than in the past, not no longer speaking with divine terms about himself, but calling himself instead an 'humanitarian leader'"

Another mistake (or negligency) that Kranenborg makes in that book about Elan Vital is the statement that he does not know whether there are still followers of Maharaji in the Netherlands, while Elan Vital is listed in the phone directory of Amsterdam! I wrote him per e-mail about this mistake, but I did not receive a reply. Andries 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the clearly biased article on Skull and Bones containing such gems as 8. "Bush, George Walker (S&B, 1968); U.S. President 2004- (vote fraud), appointed U.S. President, 2000- (systemic vote fraud, judicial corruption), TX Governor, 1996-2000 (his father got him the job);" and I get nailed for vandalism? Either Jossi is a poor sysadmin or wikipedia is not up to snuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotten (talk • contribs)

Deleting large portions of text from an article is considered vandalism. If you disagree with the content of an article, please discuss your edits in the talk page of that article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed? It was $%#@ing 100 paragraphs of nutcase rantings and way too long for the subject at hand. You're clearly out of order and a poor administrator. Check my other edits, I'm hardly a vandal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotten (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you become familiar with Wikipedia. Here s a good place to start: Wikipedia:Five Pillars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a very severe attack of vandalism by multiple sockpuppets, I think it is reasonable to maintain a block for an hour or so. If you unprotect again I will not reimpose protection. --File Éireann 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can deal with the vandals and sockpuppets. I have also alerted the WP:CVU and added it to the wtach list. I will unprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]