69.18.5.40 (talk) →Thanks for warning Dseer: new section |
m →Thanks for warning Dseer: oops, wasn't signed in |
||
Line 464: | Line 464: | ||
== Thanks for warning Dseer == |
== Thanks for warning Dseer == |
||
Thanks much, Jossi, for warning Dseer about personal attacks. He did seem a bit over the top with that one. [[ |
Thanks much, Jossi, for warning Dseer about personal attacks. He did seem a bit over the top with that one. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:38, 29 November 2007
“ | 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 |
Coca-cola
actually, jossi. the coca-cola page was hacked and there was no code with the hack on it so i guess it was some like fixed hack thing. sorry you missunderstood.
i have a wikipedia account its ryryion theryes nothing wrong i would never mess wikipedia up its helped me with alot of papers.
thanks
ryan..
(screen name (aol) westoceanlove16)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.183.240 (talk • contribs)
Jossi, please look at Generation Rescue talk page
We think we have materially improved the citation, and that problems have been created by people who violently disagree with Generation Rescue and want a very slanted entry. All we want is a Wiki page that is neutral and presents BOTH sides of the organization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staff Writer Wiki (talk • contribs)
Request for Comment: Regarding subcategory title
Please give your comment / suggestions regarding this in the Sathya Sai talk page. I have also requested comments from other editors. Wikisunn 22nd February 2007
You comments relating to an edit on Leonardo. 1. I bow to your editorial skill 2. I believe you are in error and obviously uninformed on recent theories regarding DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Therefore I would request you retract you comment of Vandalism as it is unwarranted. There was no nonsense in the comments appended. If you still believe there was, please be specific. I thank you for you concern and applaud you contributions but I do not want you to believe there was nonsense or malice. I would be pleased to have had the opportunity to append cites to support my comment had you not voided them. I would hope that actions were not homophobic and assume you are not involved in art history. I am university educated with an art history minor from Columbia University, N.Y. and studied in Italy as well. In any event, best regards. denidoc@gmail.com
Prince Henry
I will try to follow your suggestions. However, let me point out that the first to insult with vulgar terms like "asshole" was Dr. Lisboa. And it is difficult not to attack a poster who is constantly wrong, refuses to acknowledge his errors, and simply persists in them or drops one error and creates new ones. In short, how gladly must one suffer fools?
professional historian who has corrected Dr. Lisboa's many errors.
This has nothing to do with the content of the article, but simply the unneccesary insult directed toward me on the talk page. I noticed your post there, and this seems to be the only way of contacting you. I refuse to take abuse from another person, virtual or otherwise. Thank you.
Calligraphy
Hi Jossi. I note tonight that someone put a spam notice at the bottom of the Calligraphy page. I hope it was not you ? I have done most of the editing recently- I have contacted some 3rd parties about their own sites that I have put links to. My judgement is that the assistance and educational value of the ones chosen is significant. There are a number of editing decisions that I have made that exclude content on the basis of it being an invitation for all and sundry to post their own sites or books. I recommend that if someone has a specific objection that they make it public. Otherwise I think we're on the right track. What do you think about the prominent calligraphers list ? I don't think that it is useful and again poses a threat to the credibility of the main site. ayou may wish to read my recent contributions on the discussion board regarding some of the things I have had to correct- one example includes changing a short, direct quotation from a reputable source into a misquotation. Can we have a look at introducing some new images and perhaps removing "Urkunde" ? Please respond on my talk page. Regards.â Furminger â 19 April 2007
- I did not touch that article for a while. For an guideline on what is acceptable as an external link, see WP:EL. â jossi â (talk)
IRC cloak request
I am jossi on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jossi Thanks. --~ â jossi â (talk)
backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages
how are you, i was at the help desk and couldn't find stuff on taking down a photo just 4.11 Uploading a photo. I wasn't the one who took down the "Kjærlighetspar" photo on the intimacy page, i just signed out of my accout to post a myspace and youtube vandal pic hoping someone would take down all the pics seeing how none of the pics are specific to the intimacy sentences. it worked, but on the Stephan Sinding page the back frame and caption for the pict "Kjærlighetspar" ("Loving couple") is still up just like on the intimacy article. i think the pics were deleted by you since User:Jossi was the last undo, and a administrator. can you send some pointers on how to get rid of that backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages and not just take them down Please.
pict frame backdrop on Stephan Sinding pages
Stephan Sinding pages, thanks.
sorry for that long letter since you werent even the one who undid the last message. i didnt even notice the Click here to ask your question about editing Wikipedia on the New contributors' help page. if your the one who got intouch with User:Ziji to take down the back pict frame on the Stephan Sinding pages, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.95.66 (talk • contribs)
How do I ask for protection on (a) page(s)?
How do i ask for protection on a page?
Please reply on my talk page
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 â September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Article Protection
Please can you justify how issues regarding the trademark is relavant to the Royal Bengal Airline article? Please could you very kindly review this again and cut this out? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airphantom (talk • contribs)
Can you please help me - again
Hi. On the Henry Keogh page there has been a debate going on about that there was no citing on whether he attended the school. One has been made, but how do we know that she isn't just lying to make sure it stays on? Surely there must be more than just writing something down and giving it an un-proven cite and that makes it able to be kept on. Can you explain to me more on that situation of whether you can just write it down or you have to actually have physical proof.
Sorry, some people must think they are you as they are asking a question I am asking you.
my edit to 2005
Might I point out the line concerning "Berticus the great"?
Your welcome is welcome
Thanks for saying hello.
deleted help page
hi,
I was reading something on help page. After few minutes i went to have coffe some body have deleted or edited the content in my help page and saved the page how can i get back that content. Please help me in doing this. Thanks and regards, Y.Naganaresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naganaresh (talk • contribs)
Mean Red Spiders
All the information is true.
David Humphreys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashumphreys (talk • contribs)
self published sources
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; * the article is not based primarily on such sources."
stop removing sections without discussing them on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.208.156 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for Extension
Dear Jossi,
Many thank for giving me (and everyone else out there) until the eighth to get the citations in.
RE: Categories
Ambox type=serious
I noticed you'd changed the type of {{POV}}, {{original research}} and {{blpdispute}} from "content" to "serious" a few days ago. I've reverted the changes, since the consensus on Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes seems to be that type=serious should be reserved for things like imminent deletion (i.e. {{AfDM}}, {{dated prod}}, {{db-meta}} etc.). If you'd like to discuss this issue, I'd suggest doing so here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See also
References
Thanks!
My RFA | ||
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:27, 11/4/2007 |
RfA with Jesus Army
The Jesus Army article as it stands seems to me to have multiple issues. It strikes me that it deviates from the encyclopedic approach, gives little information and majors overmuch on the Criticism section.
A large proportion of the material, particularly, in the Criticism section is Original Research or not Verifiable, quoting self-published sources, blogs and posts from forums.
When I started to edit on Wikipedia, I was aware of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but missed WP:COI. As the Jesus Army's webmaster, I guess I have a COI. Since I had that pointed out to me, I have refrained from editing there. However at least one other major contributor has a history of opposition to the Jesus Army.
The article needs taking in hand, ideally with a rewrite by a neutral editor. I know you have shown some interest in this area in the past, so I hoped you might be able to help take this forward.
More details: Talk:Jesus_Army#Request_for_Assistance, with further comments on User:John_Campbell/Jesus_Army
John Campbell 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your involvement, but I'm not sure how far we are getting with achieving NPOV with recent partisan edits. Could you look by again, please! John Campbell (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
Hi Jossi. I revised Wikipedia:Sock puppetry per the talk page discussion. I believe the new addition closes the gray ares between socks/inappropriate alternate account users as well as keeps socks from arguing that they are legitimate socks. Please review and revise as needed. -- Jreferee t/c 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- How did you do that.... the page is protected... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jossi. I posted some questions and answers as to how the inappropriate alternate account section of the Sock puppetry policy should work. I think that is what we all had in mind on the talk page. If not, please let me know. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I revised the policy to cover this situation, but am not so certain the language I used does that. If an editor creates account A, then discards account A for new account B, then discards account B for new account C, there are two possibilities. Either this person has three main accounts, two of which are no longer used (in which case the policy should not apply to any of his accounts) or this person's account B is an alternate account of account (A-C). It might be enough to say in the policy "let consensus figure it out" instead of puting language in the policy that may be used to skirt the intent of the policy. Less is more, sometimes. : ) Anyway, my brain is tapped and I would appreciate any clarity you can provide to the policy. -- Jreferee t/c 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the progress you are making with the wording is getting very good. The concern about "discarded accounts" has another implication that is covered in the "Clean start". The problem is that bad habits die hard, and editors that discard previous accounts to avoid scrutinity and re-engage in disruption should not be encouraged to do so by whatever we say in the policy. See WP:BEANS... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Would appreciate some advice
Hi Jossi. I'm a bit shocked to learn that IPSOS has been indef blocked. If this is due to his involvement with the BKWSU article then I am also concerned but it seems there are other factors I am not aware of relating to another arbcom case so in that case I have to keep an open mind.
I would be interested to know what you're assessment of the situation regarding the article is. Do you have any specific advice for me on how best to proceed? I've appreciated the involvement of editors with no BKWSU connection such as Utcursch, Reneeholle and IPSOS to make the more drastic required improvements to the article but there are some very determined accounts who systematically undo these changes and/or push POV edits without seeking consensus in any meaningful way on the basis that they are indisputably right. How do I deal with that? We are trying to preserve a version of the article reached by consensus but there doesn't seem to be any way to achieve that without also being accused of edit waring. I feel like this is a no-win situation. Key decision points were reached by Rfc. How is it possible to preserve these decisions when they keep getting ripped apart.
I also have seen that you also get some flak on/off Wiki for your affiliation to an NRM so hopefully you can appreciate the situation I am in although you probably haven't been subjected to a sustained, intense propaganda campaign about it as I seem to be experiencing. I posted a complaint on WP:ANI but the response has been along the lines that I shouldn't be editing the article due to COI. Now what do I do? I tried leaving the article for Green108 to edit alone for a while and this was my analysis of the result. If there was some system whereby I could be assured the article would be supervised against POV and bad faith editing then I would gladly retire, but as yet I haven't seen a viable, working solution.
Look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have on this. Best regards Bksimonb 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can see that IPSOS has been blocked due to violation of WP:SOCK. My advice would be to make suggestions in the talk page instead of editing the article directly, if indeed you are in a conflict of interest situation. Note that having a COI, does not preclude you from editing the article, just that you need to be very mindful of editing within the content policies of Wikipedia. In my experience, patience, perseverance, civility, and avoiding at all costs any edit warring or any perceptions of such, will result in the best outcome that is a neutral and well sourced article on the subject. If there are editors in that article that want to push a certain agenda, involve other editors via RfCs, Wikipedia:Peer review and other such methods. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jossi. Thanks for the useful advice. I must admit I didn't consider peer review before. I have used article Rfcs successfully until now but preserving the outcome of those decisions without appearing to be one half of an edit war is proving to be a challenge. I guess a peer review will help establish what actually is a consensus version of the article.
- Thatcher131 has highlighted that he would need further authorisation to ban disruptive editors that the current probation terms allow. Will draft something to help in that area too.
- Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please discuss on WT:BLP and self-published sources?
Can you help reach consensus on the talk page, please? See, Brimba pointed out [1] that WP:BLP says "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." That isn't really what you, or SlimVirgin, or even Brimba himself, have been saying about "non-controversial is all right", if I summarized correctly in User:AnonEMouse/BLPSPS. It is pretty clear that many, if not most of our Wikipedia:Featured articles about living persons violate that. All I want is for the policy to say what we actually do, and what you, and SlimVirgin and even Brimba have been saying it should: to pick your words: "I do not see what the problem would be with using that source for this". Right now BLP does say there is a problem, a big one: "may never be used" is pretty clear it does need to be removed even if not contentious. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That can be discussed there, yes. My view is that the policy should say what is says now: "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. " If there are specific situations that requires making an exception, these cases can be discussed by editors of a specific article when this may not apply.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- This wording is compatible with WP:SPS, and more stringent given that these are BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
RS
Can it be re-merged? I think it can. The only novel info that is of any value is the exceptional claims description and the convenience links section. The former can be brought to V and the latter to CITE. All the rest of it is redundant fluff. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Count me in. I am for it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- We've both been through ATT. Obviously we need to avoid the main mistake that happened there: not informing Jimbo clearly and early enough. The idea has been unleashed on RS talk. Let's wait for a couple of days of comment (I think it will be supportive) and then notify him directly. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not so sure it will be needed. RS was never official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. I just don't want any late surprises. I've begun the dismantling: convenience links moved to CITE and 'Why use reliable sources?' shortened and brought into V. Next consideration is the exceptional claims description. Marskell (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi would you agree that at a minimum we should drop a note on the village pump? Marskell (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not so sure it will be needed. RS was never official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- We've both been through ATT. Obviously we need to avoid the main mistake that happened there: not informing Jimbo clearly and early enough. The idea has been unleashed on RS talk. Let's wait for a couple of days of comment (I think it will be supportive) and then notify him directly. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- With my usual impatience I have gone ahead and started a pump thread. We really do need to let people know. And I'm still very iffy about proceeding without posting to Jimbo. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- His talk page might be better, given how many people watch it. Or we could do both.
Sfacets
Thanks for taking the time to look at that! -- But|seriously|folks 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sure... but in cases in which you are personally involved, you should not exercise your admin privileges. That reflects poorly on you and on all Wikipedia:Administrators. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Best way to respond
Hi Jossi. It seems my friend is back on the BKWSU article. A new account, Ugesum has done a blanket revert to his preferred version with the discussion page comment, "The BKs just try to whitewash everything away. They dont care. They bend rules. Sorry to say. Not so good in English. Ecsuse me. Ugesum" and with the also somewhat inflammatory edit comment, "rv BKWSU PR Team version". I don't want to be again in a position where I'm seen as one side of a two-sided edit war so I would appreciate if you have any suggestions on how I should best respond to this specific event. If I don't hear in 24 hours then I will have to take a chance that I am (hopefully) doing the right thing and revert the article.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think that will do anything? AWachowski filed a totally bogus SSP report and it was referred to the arbcomm notice board. My ANI report was just referred there too as was Bksimonb's former ANI report. I just filed this there but I'm not sure what to do with the repetitive, persistent, identical changes? (and the changes are identical between AWachowski/LWachowski/Ugesum) I know you have lots of experience in dealing with this kind of stuff so advice is appreciated. Renee (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unexplained article move
Hi, Jossi; I need to bring this to someone who understands the issue in Spanish. By moving it from the question mark to the explanation point (contrary to sources and with no discussion), the article is now POV, implying that the king demanded rather than asked (that it was an imperative rather than a query). All of the sources I have seen use a question mark, and since I'm not an admin, I can't move it back. I'm also not sure if I can post a request at Requested moves, since I don't know if CieloEstrellado will challenge. I also posted to Titoxd, since he speaks Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tito got to it already, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In case you're interested in following, CieloEstrellado disputes the title. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks very much. DurovaCharge! 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Prechter employee User:Rgfolsom has just massively re-edited this article and deleted the NPOV tag. I know you were watching this one at one time, but you've had a lot on your plate, and this one was quiet for a while. --Orange Mike 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input
Just want to say a genuine "Thanks!" for providing questions, and for straightforward responses to my answers and others' queries. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop
Thanks.. I may not be an admin, and thus I dont have the ability to re-delete it.. but I do have the right to set it up however I want it set up.
If i need to create a new account to keep that user & talkpage deleted/cleared, then thats what I'll do. Lsi john (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- No. Please do not do a cross-namespace redirect. You can leave the pages blanked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- explain the definition of cross-namespace.. and show me where the rule is which prevents it. I want the page deleted, not blanked and not redirected. It was deleted and someone decided they outrank my request to delete it. Is it my talkpage or not?
- If i have no other option, then please delete my talkpage and my userpage, just like Durova deleted Smee's and I will not edit from this account again. Lsi john (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Status
Dammit. It had been fairly smooth sailing.
Have you received any comments on your mailing list note? Marskell (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Only Aude's comments same as in Dammit, basically that newbies will understand better the concept of "Reliable sources" that the concept of verifiability. That is easily dealt with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA - thanks
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Question
Hi Jossi, I have a question that I hope you have time to answer. I just want to know if I can vote and/or post a comment to this page [[3]]. I watch the ANI page, BLP and other pages of this sort to help me learn more about things going to help me with my own editing. I saw the first post from the beginning when it was announced that the editor was indefinitely blocked and the tornado of activities that have occurred since. If I read correctly, then my being just an editor does not allow me to make any posts to this. I am just try to clarify to make sure I am correct in what I read at the top of it. Thank you for any clarifications you have for me. You can respond here if you would like or on my talk page. No rush on my part about this, I just, well let me just say I'd like to vote on one of the proposals on it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a !vote, and you can definitively comment on any RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo
Done. I thought it best to say it on his talk page rather than his e-mail, for the sake of transparency. Marskell (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- He commented on threads immediately above and below but not on the one I posted. This usually indicates he doesn't think it worth his time and we're sort of rudderless without him. What if we made RS a kind of disambiguation page? Link to sections in policy that are relevant but don't try to offer novel advice? Marskell (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
The use of reliable sources is central Wikipedia's content policies, and this guideline serves to disambiguate various mentions:
- The principal description of reliable sources is the sources section of Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- Reliable sources are necessary to avoid original research as described in the sources section of Wikipedia:No original research.
- Reliable sources are especially critical in dealing with biographical information on living people; see the sources section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.
This could work as intermediate step. Marskell (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You mean retain it as essentially a disambiguation page? It's a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you said that above. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Andries
Jossi, I would like to have Andries banned. Apart from the misinformation he is spreading on talk pages and POV editing, he is deliberately falsifying his editing when challenged ie. distorting a cited quote, changing the edit when challenged and then writing in the talk pages that he cited the source verbatim (never made the edit). Unless you check the edit history, it looks as if he was incorrectly challenged. I'm tired of his antics.Momento (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- If he continues with that kind of behavior, it will only make that a more plausible end-game scenario for him. Given enough rope... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please take this discussion to Andrie's talk page. Andries: asking editors to assume good faith in your case, and given your past history, is a asking a lot. Demonstrate that you care about this project more than you care about your POV, and you may regain that right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use
Hey, I see you objected to Betacommandbot's recent tagging of one of your images. Thing is, unless you use precisely the name of the article for which your fair use rationale applies, BCBot will get you. I've changed the template (on one of your images - used in Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour) to match. I suggest you do the same to all other images you've uploaded to prevent them being deleted. There's certainly nothing personal going on, just protection of Wikipedia via the fair use policy. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you need more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
For the support. Could you refactor to something more genteel? I'm glad you care. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for warning Dseer
Thanks much, Jossi, for warning Dseer about personal attacks. He did seem a bit over the top with that one. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)