User talk:Jossi/archive5

Thanks

Even when I've acted like a prick, you were there with a friendly welcome message. For that, I applaud your existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.217.12 (talk • contribs)

My pleasure. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boki 02 image reverts...

Hi. Thanks for adding the page protection box on the Dannii Minogue page. However, User:Boki 02 is continuing to replace the good images with his unlicensed and poor quality images. I did as you suggested and listed it on WP:3RR, and I have also left several messages on his talk page - with no response. Is there another way to stop him from continually editing the page? Thanks Howie ☎ 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small question

Hi there, I have a small question. I was just wondering if say, hypothetically speaking, I were to be nominated for a mop and bucket position, would I have your support? I'd rather get feedback now than to have a failed RfA and have to wait until the spring for another run at it. Thanks. A reply at my user page would be good. --Jay (Reply) 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

I'm really, really sorry for vandalising the page Morse. I just wanted to release my anger on that stupid spotty ignoramus Tomarse Paddy Morse. Keep up the good work, --195.93.21.36 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pryor protect

Just happened to be looking for some background info on Richard Pryor and came across the current page and noticed the "reverse-racist" comment; it appears that it is at least one piece of vandalism that slipped through prior to the protect and probably ought to be removed. Thanks. Peyna 03:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out that vandalism? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you look at the last edit prior to his death [1]; you will see that the phrase "but to most Americans did not get his full due because he was in reality an extreme reverse-racist." is not present.

The phrase was added with this edit: [2] by User talk:141.150.83.71 who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia outside of that article. (Other than something a few months ago, so it might not be the same person).

The same IP's other edits to the page were blatant vandalism.

At any rate; it's clearly vandalism. Peyna 05:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peyna, but I'm sure that all vandalism was removed before the protection. If there is some that I missed please let me know.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woohookitty:Woohookitty removed the vandalism after your protect and then later unprotected it, so it's been taken care of. Thanks for looking into this, though. Peyna 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hey - just found out I have been blocked...whilst answering questions regarding my candidature for the Arbitration panel. I think the IP address is the issue here - I am an AOL user so it goes with the terrority! Just been editing the 2005 Hemel Hempstead oil explosions - linked form the Current Events page - so my block must have only just occured.

If possible, could you unblock the IP address, if only to allow me to answer the arbitraion panel questions! I only ever edit using my user name, I assure you I mean no harm doktorb 09:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, I need to know your IP address so I can unblock you. Please note that if your IP address is from AOL, blocks are usually short, between 15 minuts to a couple of hours.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

212.98.161.163

Hi Jossi, I just wanted to let you know that an anon user you've warned with a {{test4}} has made more vandalism edits. 212.98.161.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) KnowledgeOf Self | talk 01:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please place requests for blocking at WP:AIV, and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologys, I shall do that next time. :-D KnowledgeOf Self | talk 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby v. Natalinasmpf

Hello Jossi! Looking at the history of Communism, I see Natalina with about 7 reverts. I don't see how she's exempt from 3RR and Gibby's not, even if Gibby was POV pushing. Please get back to me on this. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked Gibby for fairness, now that the article is protected, rather than blocking Natalina. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Kingdom Hearts!?!?!?

I dont understand why you blocked the kh2 wikipedia site could you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentreaction (talk • contribs)

I protected the page on December 5 due to recurrent vandalism. I have unprotected it now. Happy editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For unblocking the kh2 website!

Blocked 62.6.139.10

Hi you blocked the above IP which is one of the British National Health Service's common IPs. It is quite epossible that this IP was vandalised, but many ordinary users will be editing from behind this IP. If you look at the user's contributions you will see how wideranging they are - signifying that there are multiple people behind the IP Refdoc 09:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added sharedip template warning. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware of the template. Refdoc 11:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandals

Thanks for staying up on those anon vandals. You're making me look bad when I report them and they're already blocked. Thanks!! LOL.Gator (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:216.186.51.2

How long was your block on that IP address? Your blocking notice on its talk page said 16:09, but someone at that address just vandalized Benjamin Franklin three times between 19:34 and 19:36. Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orioane's RfA

Hey Jossi/archive5! Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. To my amazement there were no negative or neutral votes and the result was (28/0/0). I am now an administrator so I'll try and do my best in this new position. I'll be happy to answer any comments or requests from you. Thanks one more time, Mihai -^talk 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected your user page dt the recurrent vandalism. Pleas etell me when you want me to unprotect. Refdoc 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Spurlock Fiasco

First, thanks for the page protection. You beat me to heading to make an official request. Second, I'd like to get it resolved ASAP, but this is my first time having to deal with someone so intent on not even as much as discussing the content and instead violating any amount of rules and guidelines to push the POV. Can you give me any pointers? Reply here, I'll keep it on watch overnight. --badlydrawnjeff 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's now doing the same thing to the Debbie Schlussel article. I hate to request page protection here, too, but something needs to be done, because it's becoming obnoxious. Any pointers? --badlydrawnjeff 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff

Why was my 3RR complaint on Badlydrawnjeff edited out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs)

Because there was an edit war going on, I decided to protect the article rather than to block. Please continue the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Jossi/archive5: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SoLando's RFA

Hi Jossifresco, sorry for this primitive looking thank you for voting in support of my RFA. The result was (28-0-0 ). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

I appreciate your reasons for wanting to change your username ASAP. However, changing usernames places a huge load on the servers and I understand that for users with more than roughly 6,800 edits, there is a chance of it crashing Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, I'd recommend that you contact a developer directly, and if you have no luck there, raise it on the discussion lists or meta. Warofdreams talk 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of current developers at m:developers. The quickest way to contact them is probably on IRC; some are also active on Wikipedia itself, so you could for instance try User talk:Angela or User talk:Andre Engels. Warofdreams talk 15:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kuteragi page

I appreciate the locking of the Kuteragi page, since it will no doubt halt the revert war.

However, the version you locked it at was the one Brazil4Linux and his traced IP addresses were trying to push forward.

Brazil used his main account, that of QuackShot, and those anon ips you see to bypass the 3RR (and the will of every other user on the page, including GoldDragon and Jedi6), arriving at the present state of the page at the moment. If you could put the page text state back to how it was before Brazil4Linux started this insane edit war, maybe he would actually TALK to us about it, rather than just revert revert revert. Trust me, we've tried to discuss this with him, and it's so far gotten nowhere.

Thanks a lot. Daniel Davis 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Yes, every time I protect a page due to edit warring, I am told that I have protected the wrong version. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed quite a hilarious page, Jossifresco. Like I said, I appreciate the locking of the article. I never said you were wrong, as the version you protected is entirely your point of view, which I agree you are entitled to. However, might you consider that the version you kept it at was the one only supported by Brazil4Linux and IP socks...

Whereas the prior one was heretofore agreed upon by the majority consensus of the group, including users GoldDragon, Jedi6, MSJapan and Jacoplane? I'm not making a critique of your decision by any means, just alerting you to the majority consensus regarding the page state. Daniel Davis 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

I will check, but as an admin it is not my place to make a value judgement about consensus. Let me take a look. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Daniel, but I cannot get involved in the dispute. I will add a factual accuracy dispute to the article, so that at least we can let readers know that content is disputed. That is all I can do. I would suggest you request an WP:RfC. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking at it. Thanks. Daniel Davis 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Btw

Thank you for your recent help patrolling WP:RfP. It's a page that gets neglected from time to time, so any help is appreciated. I've been doing it for 5 weeks. According to dmcdevit, there was a time when he was the only one doing it! So any help is appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. Although often times is a thankless job.... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

John Arthur Spenkelink needs references

Hello, Could you add references to the article you started on John Arthur Spenkelink, the executed murder?--FloNight 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally

Thanks for your invite. I've gone and got myself an id, and thought I'd say hello. Haven't read through all those rules and conventions yet, though. (Although you didn't oblige me by putting back my original edit, I realize that's consistent with those "pillars of Wiki" you refer to, whatever---buy hey, great job. This is a cool project, and with guys like you (real quick responses!), I'm sure it'll work out great. I'll try to chip in a bit myself when I can. Cheers!

Talk:Ken Kutaragi

Just look at Talk:Ken Kutaragi. Now, a revert war in talk page, because Doom127 is blanking my contributions about the their bad faith with sock puppets pool and "24 hours" consensus mediation (he is involved) --Quackshot 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do have a look at the Kutaragi article. You'll see two things: In an effort to create a consensus amongst the group (those of us who edit with good faith), I've put forth a fair and honest vote, with ground rules to prevent sockpuppets on either side. On the other hand, Quackshot/Brazil4Linux seems content to slash the tally marks, replacing them with a rather large paragraph accusing me of all sorts of nonsense. If he wishes to contribute by adding his vote, he was welcome to it; en masse destruction of the tally paragraph, on the other hand, is not welcome.

Of note, he's still reverting changes I had nothing to do with on the Virtual Boy and Revolution pages (changes that the group had already agreed upon), without consulting any of the prior editors of the article. Daniel Davis 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

I will take a look. Please continue your discussions on Talk:Ken Kutaragi. It is not appropriate to do it here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kutaragi

A RfC is being worked on. Hopefully this mess will be resolved soon. Jacoplane 04:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slainte!

Hi jossi fresco. Thanks for your support on my recent RFA. The request was successful, with a final tally of 33/0/0. I'm delighted that you decided to support it and I hope that I can live up to your expectations. I can't promise that I'll keep all the vandals out the fort, but I'll try and put up a fight in the manner of some of my countrymen. Leithp (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your old user pages

Why didn't you leave redirects at your Jossifresco user pages? Now there are a lot of confusing red links all over the place. --Tantalum T e lluride 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had my reasons (Sent you private email). Redirects restored for now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. --Tantalum T e lluride 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

You deleted redirects from your old username to your new one. It may be helpful to restore them, so that people viewing talk pages can go to your new account easily. Ral315 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... thanks. Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism page

What was wrong with my writing on Freud, Nietzsche and Marx. Sure I didn't spend long on it, but it wasn't lacking in factual basis. I was hoping that someone would improve on it, not just delete it.

Why did you just delete it? Did you think it was spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.237.11 (talk • contribs)

I did not think it was spam. I placed some pointers in your talk page User_talk:80.229.237.11 for you to follow and become familiar with how Wikipedia works, so that your contributions are useful and can remain. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to write essays. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

Um... but isn't that exactly what everyone else on the page is doing? I wrote a piece on Freud which is based on Freud's "future of an illusion" and something I read in MacIntyre's "The Religious Significance of Atheism". I can't remember where I read about Nietzsche's death, but everything else can be found fairly explicitly in his works: "Antichrist" and "Thus Spake Zarathustra". I can't see many citations on the webpage anyway and don't know how to make a citation. (I believe I DID reference Freud's future of an illusion. What do you want? Page numbers???)

You can simply say "According to Freud's "Future and Illusion", published in 19XX, ....." and also. In McIntiyre's "The Religious Significance of Atheism" it is proposed that ....", etc. To understand the need for specifying sources, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that the content of articles is verifiable and credible.
To enhance the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
To show that your edit isn't original research.
To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
To credit a source for providing useful information.
To avoid claims of plagiarism or any other form of intellectual dishonesty.
To provide more information or further reading.

id

Jossi, You edited a vandalized version of the ID article. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Don't ever use Rollback for anything EXCEPT reverting vandals.

Now then, I insist that you explain your revert on the talk page - Template talk:Infobox Company. What was "broken"? -- Netoholic @ 01:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was broken in many pages such as Greenpeace. It was showing text floating atop of page. When I reverted to a previous version it got corrected. You can try it yourself by restoring your version and viewing the article Greenpeace. In the future, when you make changes that impact hundred of pages, you need to check a few of the pages via "what links here" to make sure you have not broken anything. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How rude... I'm not some newbie editing my first template. I checked a dozen company articles after my change, which was tested as a standalone well before updating the actual template. The Greenpeace article called the template in an usual way, with multiple extraneous line breaks. That is what made it look broken, not the template itself. -- Netoholic @ 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, relax... no harm done. That is why we have history and can revert back. And about rudeness, why don't you re-read your message above? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 24.71.223.140

My apologies, but I had to undo your block on 24.71.223.140 as it also affected me as an active administrator. (I have been told by other admins that this is an exception to the "don't unblock yourself" rule) It is a pain, but unfortunately the way Shaw Cable is set up there's no way to avoid the fact many people use the same IP address - and even being registered as I am has no effect. If you spot 24.71.223.140 causing more trouble, please contact me on my talk page so that I'm aware of the issue. Thanks. 23skidoo 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems... Consider talking to Shaw Cable and ask them to move you to another IB block. It is doable if you ask hard enough.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

malo's RfA

Thank you!

≈ jossi fresco ≈, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 03:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey Jossi! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Reversion

Is it just me or am i reverting all the vandalism and you warning people for it? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 04:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime that happens. It is called teamwork :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like it ;) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 04:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How come I have never seen you at IRC at wikipedia-en-vandalism? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-vandalism is set-up by the Counter Vandalism Unit to list and discuss current vandalism

I don't go there. Should I? I'm just trying to make a contribution, and since I can't be bothered to write articles, I figure chores like RC Patrol are the easiest ways to help out. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fun is all there... We have a bot running that alrets us of vandalism. It is great and the company excellent. Give it a try. Do you have an IRC client? If not, let me know what OS you are running and I will give you some pointers. 04:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm not a proper Nerd. =). I'm on Windows XP. What client would you recommend? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 04:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No nerds are most welcome. You can try this one: http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Chat/IRC-Clients/NetIRC.shtml. the channel is at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-vandalism #wikipedia-en-vandalism . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How disturbing - I've started to add wiki-links into everything I type on Wikipedia. I'll see you there. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 04:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

Semi protection is live! Not sure how much you know about it, but essentially, it limits editing on certain heavily vandalised articles to registered users old than 4 days old. It's *only* for heavy vandalism. So for people who have had problems for 4-5 days only, it's not appropriate in most cases. More at WP:SEMI. I created a subsection for S-P on the PP page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people peer review?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happiest Holidays

May the Universe Bless you and yours. BTW, love the artwork.--ghost 15:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THe warning you sent to IP 62.7.139.10 is pretty pointless. The IP is shared by the whole British NHS as marked at the top of the user an talk page. Refdoc 16:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. Next time I shoud simply block for 15 mins in these cases. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Welcome message

Those links will be very helpful. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of starting at a very controversial topic so I'm glad to feel welcome here. Regardless, I wanted to thank you for being so thoughtful. --Optimus 16:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. Take it easy and make sure you take some Wikibreaks from time to time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc Page Protection

While protection of the Joan of Arc article was welcome, there's a problem: the protection was granted right after one of the offending editors had reverted Durova's fix (again), which will only make things worse. If possible, could you restore Durova's version? This would be appreciated. 82.127.99.246 05:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately when I protect pages due to editwarring I have the habit to protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you're in the difficult situation of being unable to please both sides, but nevertheless it seems unfair to keep the current version locked in place day after day, especially when one side isn't even addressing the concerns raised by the other (footnote 3 was never in dispute - Durova had pointed out that many of the other footnotes were out of sequence or led to the wrong citation, not footnote 3). It would be appreciated if the article could finally be unlocked so that the current mess can be fixed. 82.127.99.246 12:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are addressed by other editors. However, 82.127.99.246 has not even discussed the issues on the talk page, at least under by the IP name 82.127.99.246. 82.127.99.246 has stated on Durova's talk page the intention to revert again if unlocked. Other editors have checked the article and found it works. The so called "fix" is just made up as a reason to revert without discussion, which further deletes other changes not even related to such "fix." I don't understand why 82.127.99.246 points out a version that contained errors when the errors have been updated since then simply by the correct order of the footnote placement. I wonder if a dispute resolution process should be entered, before the page is unlocked, to encourage discussion. — Dzonatas 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is not forever. It is a measure to encourage editors to engage in constructive conversations. Please continue your discussions at Talk:Joan of Arc. To request unprotection, add an entry to WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas' comment above (claiming that the issues were allegedly covered by "other editors" when such is not the case) is another illustration of why discussion looks to be fruitless - he and Rei appear to be trying to drag out the matter as a means of retaining a garbled version that cannot be defended by any other means. 82.127.99.246 13:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

about building bridges

In this particular case his edit summaries, and edits (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=29940179&oldid=29902552 and http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=29940993) made it very clear that they was the same person, this was also noted by two other admins in the 3rr report. I have also asked for a check on that ip against that user see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#please_check_this_ip_against_User:RK and the answer was "What I can say is that I am not certain it is RK - in fact, there's a LOT of users I recognise on that IP - but I cannot say it isn't. And the edit summary and edit content style is certainly enough to make him a highly plausible maker of that edit. RK, was that you?" --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi Jossi,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any secret activity?

Hi there, I've been using a rollback button which has worked without problem or concern for over a month now. Only today, for some peculiar reason, this button seems to "not work." I was wondering if you could provide insight into whether or not this is the work of some elaborate scheme, by perhaps some fellow sysops or bureaucrats, to put an end to my shortcut in fighting vandalism at this project, or if it is simply a fault on my end. Thanks. --Jay (Reply) 22:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any such thing. In my experience, sometimes godmode stops working once in a while, for no apparent reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Accusations

I would appreciate not being accused of sockpuppet activity on my talk page, when a) I have done no such thing, and b) no evidence exists for said accusation. Thank you. - Chadbryant 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of sockpupetry, but if that was your interpretation of my comment, I apologize. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. The user to whom said template applies to has been going full-steam today, and it has become tiresome to fix the many amateur mistakes he has made in his editing. - Chadbryant 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have a ton of impersonators. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Dick_Witham. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have dealt with that user here for months. He is now attempting to start edit wars on numerous articles as User:Tehawk. - Chadbryant 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a P.I.A. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been made aware of Mr. Bryant's accusations on here through a third party and I strongly deny his accusations. I would request that in the future he refrain from making such baseless & libelous remarks, as they do not adhere to Wikipedia policities or make for good netiquette. Tehawk 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kutaragi article

I reverted to your edit in the Ken Kutaragi article and agree subsections will not help. Looks like another member disagree. --Brazil4Linux 03:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Links

Just wondering why you reverted edits? Did I do something wrong? It was kinda interesting because I had just updated the page as you reverted it. Cheers --Omnieiunium 05:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops...! Must have clicked on the wrong link on my RC patrol console. My sincere apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!! It was most amusing to reload the page to see a compeletely different page. I'll fix it. Cheers --Omnieiunium 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Tel Aviv

Why the protect after just one edit? I can live with that edit, besides, I would like to provide the citations that Leifern was asking for. Now I can't unless somebody else unprotects. I'm not about to get myself an WP:RFC for unprotecting. :):)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:Tel Aviv. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what we've been doing. Woohookitty unprotected, Leifern made a good edit and you protected again. The last edit was about requesting a citation. I'm not sure if you got around to read the whole dispute, but actually a request for a citation is something reasonable (as opposed to remove a whole paragraph) and I would like to provide it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to cool off. The article was un protected just because Woohookitty got tired of the abuse. I feel 100% comfortable with the protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel comfortable too, although the dispute was centered on the lack of references. Leifern made what I consider a good edit inserting a {{fact}} tag, and I'd like to provide the citations he requested. I actually provided them in the talk page during the 1st protection. No comments were made by the user but his request for citations came after my last edit on the talk page. I would believe the controversy is finished once I put the requested references in.

PS: Please respond in my talk, so I get a nice orange reminder to answer you. :)

PPS: I'm going to sleep, maybe when I wake up tomorrow somebody (or you) decided to unprotect. G'night. :)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If not unprotected in the morning, I will unprotect then. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please DON'T. I believed the matter was over, they don't. I know changes will be made as soon as is unprotected. Thanks for your help. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that AOL addressses should only be blocked for 15 minutes, jimfbleak 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Esperanza elections

Thanks for voting for me in the Esperanza elections. I've been appointed to the Advisory Committee, thanks to your show of confidence in me. I'll do my best to make you proud, but please feel free to ask me for help at any time or to give me tips as to what you would like to do. Thanks for being an active member of Esperanza! I'll see you around. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Jossi/archive5,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Esperanza Elections

Jossi

Thanks for voting for me at the Esperanza Elections.

I've made my way into the Advisory Committee, so if you ever need any help or have any queries about the stuff we do, please do not hesitate to ask me. Thanks again, Fir e Fox 11:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Thanks for the greetings.

I wonder if you've had any contact with User:CJK? Over at the page that caused annoyance to you recently, he has started putting extremely pro-USA, anti-(everyone else) ideological comments on the talk pages. So far, no harm to the article itself, but it raises some red flags in my mind that we're going to see something bad out of him. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that not accepting the Cuban government as a reliable source makes me "extremely pro-USA, anti-(everyone else)". CJK 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, in this day and age you cannot trust any government to be a reliable source... I wonder, is there any difference between Castro's and Bush's governments as it pertains to the reliability of information these two governments make vailable to the public? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jossi, happy new year to you too. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as suspected

It seems to be leading where I thought it would lead: mostly, so far, to moderately bad changes to the Castro entry (chiefly, so far, in removal of citations on the grounds they are not "sufficiently anti-Castro"). But I fear it portend even more obnoxious changes, probably spreading to other items.

I reported his 3RR violation, but while he repeated the identical thing 4 times, the first such edit wasn't verbatim a previous entry (though it did have the key element of trying to remove reference to Cuba's electoral system). So maybe that will keep him away on a short-term block. From what I can see of his edit history, such would be very transient relief though. Any advice by chance? These ideological warriors are just so damned frustrating to deal with while editing any pages with vaguely political content. The dictators one, maybe not surprisingly, gets more anti-Castro fanatics than all other destructive edits combined. Moreover, it's not even a dispute about listing Castro, it's just that they seem to feel that the annotation isn't sufficiently long and vitriolic for their tastes (but what they add is never germane to the list inclusion criteria, which is what we annotate). Blech!

Oh well... I guess you'll tell me "I told you so". But I still don't think this sort of problem means that the list is "inherently POV" or the like. It's just the some topics get POV-mongers who make destructive edits. For example, a similar thing happens at the Castro page itself, but I don't think anyone would argue that having an article on Fidel Castro is "inherently POV". Oh well, mostly just venting... but certainly if you have any advice, or an admin mojo, I'd love to hear it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inherent problem on controvesial topics made lists in Wikipedia. I am having a very similar discussion at List of purported cults and had similar problems on other lists as well. I intend to propose a guideline to address the problem of lists in Wikipedia. Would you care to join me in starting writing a guideline at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia?. Without such guidelines, lists will always be misused by POV pushers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better title would be Wikipedia:Lists in the main namespace. I will start it later today. Hope you join me in shaping up this proposed guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

I'd definitely help you in formulating such guidelines. Let me followup with some more thoughts later... or when you start the page itself. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fanatic, but will resist this users deceitful methods on that article and elsewhere. Maybe you shouldn't try to ignore people when they are trying to accomplish a compromise on talk or elsewhere. CJK 19:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(no subject)

Happy new years to you too. :P ...please archive your talk page. :P --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As a renaissance man, I award you this portrait:

Adios, Señor. Tal vez puedo hablar contigo al luego. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por darme la imagen de fuegos artificiales. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Greetings Jossi,
I wish to offer my gratitude supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic) 07:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia

Jossi, well done and thank you for creating this. I may add something about the Lists of Jewish xxx, because they've been controversial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:In still2.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:In still2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Also Image:S t o x 22.jpg dbenbenn | talk 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the licenses so these can stay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Image:Anay disp detail.jpg? dbenbenn | talk 00:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

RE this : WP:3RR covers performing more than 3 reverts in any rolling 24-hour period, not "calendar day". -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The reverts have to happen in a 24 hr period, i.e. a day. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the problem with that is that your timezone is set differently than mine. The times I gave in my 3RR report are in UTC. Because that can be confusing (your calendar day is different than mine, which is different from someone else), what WP:3RR really says is "an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first". -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read further. The policy refers to "three reverts in a day" throughout. In any case, 3RR is there for a reason and that reason is to avoid edit wars. A 3RR block is at the discretion of admins. In this specific case, I do not see a reason for a block, in fact I would argue that a warning on 3RR is due to both of you. Edit wars go nowhere and nobody wins them, you know? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you really do need to be aware of what that policy really means. I'd suggest asking on WT:3RR or asking someone else you trust. They will confirm that "in a day" means "in any 24-hour period". Jtdirl reverts 4 times, I edited once and reverted once. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You placed the request in the admin noticeboard. I have the right as an admin to look upon the evidence for 3RR violations and decide if to block or not to block. In this case I chose NOT to block. Other admins could decide differently and that is OK. But I will definitively not block in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more interested in making sure that you really understand the policy. Whether you block in this isn't as important as whether you are misunderstanding the 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attempt to educate me on policy, which I will re-read to refresh my memory. As for the specific case we are discussing, I still believe that my decision not to block is the correct one. You can take this up with another adminstrator if you are not satisfied. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mafia

i wrote the mafia page myself - see discussion page entitled 'revamp'. that was all me and it still makes up the bulk of the article now 6 months later. people have been putting things about american mafia under 'the mafia in italy' section. obviously that is retarded, go away and talk about things perhaps you are more knowledgeable on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.189.205 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism by 212.219.57.50

I noticed that you had blocked this user for one week in November. This user has been a persistent vandal and has been banned 9 times in the past few months. The user has started again, vandalizing a few pages today. I gave yet another final warning, but I don't know if you want to look into this or maybe ban the user for a longer time. Obviously since it's an IP, not all that much can be done other than a week or month-long ban (if it's a static IP), but there doesn't seem to be any legit activity on this IP. Please let me know on my talk page. --Comics 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I would have done, but I did that this morning for another vandal and was told that I should only be listing people who have been warned and need to be blocked. The vandal had already been warned and blocked in the past. --Comics 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a persistent vandal, with no useful edits whatsoever and that has been blocked before, as an admin I can block immediately. In your case, you can simlpy add a warning and then report at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossifresco account newly created

Hello.

Didn't your username use to be Jossifresco, and at some point got changed to just Jossi? A few minutes ago I noticed a new Jossifresco account got created. I blocked it as a precautionary measure in case there is an impostor involved. Can you clarify? -- Curps 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It was me that re-created it and then blocked indef as per guidelines. Thanks for keeping an eye! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template: contemporary philosophers

Hey Jossi, Happy New Year.

Please see here in case you want to speedy my request. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for the request to undelete? I understand that four votes is ludicrous for a deletion, but I want to understand if we really need such a category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary philosophers is a well-defined category — it is all of the philosophers living right now. It changes, as they die, but this maintenance is not too burdensome and we have been maintaining it. It's a very useful category, bringing together all current (as oppposed to historical) philosophers that we are currently documenting. I'm convinced that if the larger wikipedia community – especially the philosophy editors – had been alerted to this vote for deletion, the category would still be standing. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I am not familiar with speedy undeletes. Can you give me a pointer for this policy? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...in reviewing the Undeletion policy, it appears that since it was deleted with a valid vote, the undeletion will have to be voted on also. Oh well. I'll go ahead and nominate it for undeletion. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Send me a pointer when you post the undeletion request. I agree it needs to be put back. Alternatively, you could create a List of contemporary philosophers, spell out the criteria for inclusion and do an alpha-sorted lis of them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bongo

I had sed why Omar Bongo is no diktator but no one cers abuot it. Swedenman 11:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Finster

I'm the one taking off the useless information from that page, in no way I consider vandalism trying to help to improve a page which is full of POV of the fans of the character instead of giving just the needed information in a neutral way, as it was stated on the Kimi discussion page we all agreed that the page needed imporvement, I'd thank you if could leave us help there unless you know more about the character than us, thank you201.130.220.152 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Please explain the reasons for the deletion in the discussion page, so that it is not considered vandalism. I have also placed some pointers for you in your talk page that you can follow so that you can become familiar on how to edit articles in Wikipedia. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lists/apology

I added more. Jossi, seriously though, I need to introduce myself, and sincerely apologize. I was going to write a really long letter but I think I should save you the trouble. I admit that what I said before about you has sunk me to such a low level of civility and class that I am embarassed to even talk about it further. I am going to give you the excuse that I am soon turning 21 years old, which is true, and please understand that I am still an emotional being. Anyhow, I feel like I am talking to my father or something. Sorry, again. I am brand spanking new to wikipedia and this new environment took me a while to adjust. Again, I know have made plenty of excuses, but please accept my sincerity and put away my negative remark about you forever. You are my friend.--Antispammer 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology

Jossi, please I cannot live in the real world knowing that I completely insulted you so rudely. I start school in two days and I will probably not be on wikipedia any longer. Please I want to live knowing that you have forgiven me.--Antispammer 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give it a second thought. Just be nice to other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete my statements about you?--Antispammer 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another guru and lists

Can you have a look at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar? What's this double "Sri" business anyway, it's a (self assumed) honorary prefix, not a part of the name, right? Should this be moved to Ravi Shankar (guru)?

Regarding the list policy, you directed my attention at: I fear this is out of control, disregarding anything we can do with guidelines. But we can try anyway.

Pjacobi 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to policy, titles should not be part of a title. That is if the "Sri Sri" is in this case a title or really his name. If the "Sri Sri" is a title, then the correct procedure should be a disambiguation link at Ravi Shankar, and a distinct page such as Ravi Shankar (Art of Living or Ravi Shankar (guru). Regarding lists, I think that we are making progress at WP:LISTS. I am also drafting a communication to Jimbo Wales to alert him about the systemic problems with lists. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lists

[[3]]--Antispammer 10:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop with the threats

My edits at john Kerry are a lot better than you have ever contributed there and are not vandalism. stop with the threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.84.56.185 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some pointers in your talk page, so that you may become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in progress

You blocked User:216.56.11.5 before and (s)he is at it again. See turtle.--Hraefen 18:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please report vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]