Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) →WP:AE: new section |
|||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</small> |
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</small> |
||
== WP:AE == |
|||
[[WP:AE#Personal attack by Jossi at Talk:Millennium '73]] --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:16, 11 September 2008
“ | 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 |
TomKat
Hello As you have made comments of the discussion page of the TomKat article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would contribute to the debate on it's Articles for Deletion page. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TomKat
Jerry teps asked that page be unprotected. You had protected it on Aug. 18, for 10 days. Since it was going to expire anyways, I decided to unprotect it early, as it was a simple semi-protect to stop IP vandalism. Hope you don't mind, Maxim (☎) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Political positions of Sarah Palin
Why did you make this page redirect to Sarah Palin. It contains considerable information not found on that page and the consensus is clearly against a merger? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is duplicated info. To do a spinoff article, see WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michelangelo's grave5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Accusation of vandalism on Sarah Palin article
On my talk page, you accuse me of vandalism. Please explain. I had deleted a paragraph about Ted Stevens' 527 group in the Sarah Palin article because this same info was duplicated in the subsequent section, two paragraphs down. I explained in my edit that I deleted the paragraph because it was "redundant". Also, it seemed not to be relevant to her job as "Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner", which is the section I removed it from.
I think the vandalism charge is serious and hope that this is the result of a misunderstanding. In this case, it's also somewhat baffling since I wrote most of the info in the Sarah Palin article about the relationship between Stevens and Palin, and, although I did not originate this particular piece, I simply incorporated into the rest of the Ted Stevens section. Tsunado (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I will remove the warning. False positives do happen, my apologies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Accidental?
Hi Jossi. In this edit of yours, did you mean to revert the edits in the section on the Dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner? Or was that an unintentional byproduct? It seems to me that we don't have to name so many people (e.g. McCann and Colberg) in that summary section. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, edits are so rapid there that I reverted your name additions in the shuffle... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I was just wondering. It's quite the wild west over there. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You are probably not aware of it, but the protection was discussed on AN and there was consensus to full protect. Can you please undo your semi and join the discussion? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for someone to undo your unilateral and against-wide consensus unprotection of Palin on AN. Sorry. You can't do that and have it stick, no one admin can override consensus with tools. Buttons don't give extra authority and other admins had also supported protection. rootology (C)(T) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A short discussion does not mean consensus. Get consensus first, then protect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection restored
I've restored the protection for the moment, because there was a clear consensus, and good rationale, for doing so. I think we need to discuss over at AN if you still think full protection is unnecessary Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need for protection and a short discussion is not consensus. Will take that discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I know I will get blasted from undoing your protection, but so be it. Sometimes, once in a while, the need fotr WP:IAR emerges. This is one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gotta do what you gotta do - no ill-feeling from me :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi,
Please reconsider. WP:IAR should not be used in cases where there’s currently a clear consensus of good faith, intelligent editors against your position, and even worse, where there’s already a recent history of alternating admin actions. I just don’t see how this can possibly be anything but a wheel war. “Repeating an admin action when you know others disagree”. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that you might be wrong about this. What are we supposed to do? If there’s already been a long discussion, with about 14 editors in favor of full protection for 48 hours or more, do we have to restart the discussion because you disagree? Do we quite simply have to bow to your opinion because you’re willing to wheel war and others aren’t? How can we function if you’re going to claim “IAR” when consensus is clearly against you?
The system we’ve got only works when we respect consensus. If we all start wheel warring when we “know we’re right”, then we’re screwed. Convince other people first, then act. "Being right" should no more be a defense than it is in a content-dispute edit war.
Please restore full protection, per consensus, and if consensus changes later, then change it. Please. --barneca (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A sad day for WP, when we cannot afford people to edit articles such as this one because of disruption. Discussion is now at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a bit of a more private note, I think you meant contesting not contending on the AE discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, when an admin fully protects an article, please discuss it with him/her first before reverting the action. Then, don't wheel-war. Not doing this is disruptive to the community and a misuse of admin tools. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Sorry, retracting, I didn't know an RfAR case was already being opened to examine your actions. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to be petty, but did you get consensus for changing the template from banner to padlock? It was discussed on the talk page and consensus if any was for no change [1]. I don't have a strong opinion either way but i do think it dispiriting when admins flaunt an ability to edit according to their best judgement when no one else is afforded that opportunity. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:RFARB#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.285.2F0.2F0.2F0.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would call your attention Talk:Sarah_Palin#Protection_Template.2C_again. We've already had two discussions about the template and neither produced a consensus to minimize it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Err NYB is welcome to use the talk page on this trivial issue like any other editor. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to check the above talk page? My questions are languishing and I'd like to bring the issue to a close if possible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
RFAR
Leaving a message to inform you Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride, which may concern you. MBisanz talk 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin
I think it would be best if you step away from editing that article if you're going to make edits that do not reflect a consensus. I know I know, something as simple as this shouldn't really require a huge debate, but, there have been two discussions about it already, both of which resulted in leaving the large tag - so what you did was against a consensus. I'm sure you want to avoid any drama you can, and being a party in an Arbitration case probably doesn't sound the greatest to you. As a side note, I think the small one is best, but being bold on that article isn't going to help things. Not now, anyways. Just a friendly suggestion; feel free to just ignore me. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a good thing to avoid making claiming of consensus when there is none yet. See: Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly - there is no consensus (and there was not one when you made the change). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no consensus about the protection that started this whole drama. So the point about the tag is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that you stay away from all Palin articles for a few weeks? (if not all protection discussions?) Your actions in this area (amongst others) led to one ArbCom case already, this is just making things worse, really. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you're not going to listen and rush pell-mell into disaster, at least I did my part to hold up a stop sign. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- You see ... you are starting from the premise that I was mistaken in invoking WP:IAR and I still believe that it was necessary. Obviously, I will not do that again, given the drama this has generated. But to ask me to sit still and allow a procedural mistake of massive proportions such as invoking the Footnote arbCom ruling to protect that page, will not do, sorr. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you mean well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you're not going to listen and rush pell-mell into disaster, at least I did my part to hold up a stop sign. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that you stay away from all Palin articles for a few weeks? (if not all protection discussions?) Your actions in this area (amongst others) led to one ArbCom case already, this is just making things worse, really. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no consensus about the protection that started this whole drama. So the point about the tag is moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly - there is no consensus (and there was not one when you made the change). - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.
- Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
- Your contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.
If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
As one of the administrators who has previously deleted Welsh Foundation, please see the DRV request at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8, which I have listed on behalf of another editor, who had mucked up their list attempt. This is a courtesy notice only, and I have no opinion on the matter. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Review
You should be kept aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrative_action_review:_Tznkai --Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- 3RR diffs please?--Tznkai (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- See this ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've declined that one, for three reasons, in order of importance.
- 1. As I noted on WP:AN/3RR there is a distinct lack of consensus. Aside from genuinely not wishing to act against consensus, I have no intention of starting a wheel war.
- 2. When in doubt, I do not block: Kelly seems responsive to my comments without me having to use admin tools, at least thus far.
- 3. Mootness: I'd prefer to watch recent edits. Basically, since my re protection of the page, has someone reverted? If so, they will be warned, unless the action was egregious, and then blocked on further action. So, if Kelly has tripped over 3RR since this morning eastern time, Let me know.
- I hope you trust me on this, but I do intend to enforce 3RR, but I prefer to use other resolution when it seems to be working, however slowly, as there is a lack of egregious harm.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- See this ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
citation formatting
Hi Jossi, I would like to convert the references in the Sahaj Marg page to a format where they're not listed separately each time they're cited as a source in the text. I've found this but am very confused about how to use it. Do I just insert the bracketed "cite book" or "cite journal" in the article, save, and then go back in and fill in the blanks? What happens when I come to the second time the same book or article is used? What do I put then? Thanks. Renee (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Create a section called "References" and list there all the sources using {{cite}}, one per source. Then create a section called "Notes" in which you would place the {{reflist}}. Then simply use ref tags in the paragraphs <ref> last name of author, (Year of publication): page number. See an example at Textual criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record
I understand you will not think this was the ideal solution, but as 1) there was at best no consensus on the talk page as to this content's appropriateness on the political position page; 2) a gesture of good faith per your request, I made this edit on her main talk page. Per there being no deadline, I imagine sources will be found which would make this material fit back on the position page, and then it can be consolidated in a way agreeable to all. Thanks for considering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on Kelly's talk page
Not helping, borderline baiting. Let Kelly save some face please.--Tznkai (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I hear you and self-revereted. But what is obvious, is obvious. She/he has accused long-term ad well established editors in a manner that is quite inappropriate. If I was not involved in editing these articles, I would not be so lenient as you have been. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jossi, you're an entrenched editor on the Sarah Palin article, and, as such, it would be best to withhold your opinions on how other administrators should handle situations involving your fellow editors. Saying you would not have been "so lenient" as an administrator against an editor that has been involved in disputes with you further muddies what should be a much clearer line between your editing and your administrating, especially given the significant controversy and challenging environment surrounding that article. user:j (aka justen) 04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, for what it's worth, I sympathize with some of your thoughts on the Sarah Palin page. As you know, I made one contribution to the page based on LexisNexis and Factiva research results of multiple reliable sources verifying information and it was disregarded because some editors felt it was "not notable" -- apparently, The Washington Post, NPR, and other major news sources disagreed with their judgment but that didn't give anyone pause. Meanwhile, it seems that a handful of editors have discovered the power of WP:CONSENSUS to circumvent WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V -- not to mention widely accepted guidelines like WP:RS. I'm disappointed with some of the unhelpful comments and decisions that were made on that talk page. WP:BLP, for example, was never intended to be used for political purposes to remove inconveniently sourced facts. It was a policy established to remove clear cases of libel (rare as they may be to prove), unsourced malicious comments, and harm to innocent third-parties too young to defend themselves. In any case, you have at least the respect of one other editor on Wikipedia. As for me, I'm going to stay away from the page for a while. Keep up the good work. It doesn't go unnoticed. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I encourage you to continue the good work you have been doing. Wikipedia needs to have accurate, timely, interesting, informative, well researched and documented material in its articles not locked up on its talk pages.Rktect (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- woof woof. I can't believe this ID Cabal crap. Apparently, the new method of attacking an editor is to accuse them of being part of a cabal. Well, I'm proud to be in the Wikipedia project with you. Otherwise. Yawn. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some people see ghosts anywhere :) If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
RE:Semipro
Has there been an incident? If not, leave it be until it is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I had to remove your oppose (and the related conversation) from the history. Please feel free to insert a refactored oppose on this RfA. Please do not take this personally - I am not doing this to discount your oppose on this RfA. Thanks for your understanding and apologies for the inconvenience. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted talk page - The deletion log appears to show that this talk page was deleted in 2007. The history of the page starts abruptly in 2007. Am I reading those logs incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- My name change, if my memory serves me well, was on Dec 2005. The deletion by Pilotguy may have been related to some personal information being disclosed there, I don't recall the circumstances but by the edit summary of Pilotguy it seems he wanted to oversight something. As for Cirt's situation, I certainly hope that he will do OK with the tools and not go back to the previous patterns and I hope that my oppose will be on the record as a reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- But to get back to the question, you said I was wrong and that this talk page was not deleted. The evidence appears to show that it was deleted. Can you explain why you think this page was never deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- My name change, if my memory serves me well, was on Dec 2005. The deletion by Pilotguy may have been related to some personal information being disclosed there, I don't recall the circumstances but by the edit summary of Pilotguy it seems he wanted to oversight something. As for Cirt's situation, I certainly hope that he will do OK with the tools and not go back to the previous patterns and I hope that my oppose will be on the record as a reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted talk page - The deletion log appears to show that this talk page was deleted in 2007. The history of the page starts abruptly in 2007. Am I reading those logs incorrectly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is there any problem with restoring the edits that you say weren't deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I recall now... I think that Drini posted private information by mistake on my talk page after trying to get a cloak account for IRC, and Pilotguy deleted the page.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you like, I can restore the bulk of the edits skipping over the private information bit. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do we all agree now that the talk page was, in fact, deleted in 2007? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not by me, and not by my request. Now, if you don;t mind... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't mind I'll go back and correct the record at the RFA. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not by me, and not by my request. Now, if you don;t mind... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do we all agree now that the talk page was, in fact, deleted in 2007? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you like, I can restore the bulk of the edits skipping over the private information bit. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I recall now... I think that Drini posted private information by mistake on my talk page after trying to get a cloak account for IRC, and Pilotguy deleted the page.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I voted in opposition based on my own observations/experiences of Cirt and their previous incarnation/s. In my opposition, I cited some of the concerns that you raised on the RFA page. I just went back to comment on Durova's comment and saw this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCirt&diff=237409242&oldid=237409058. It really heightens the concerns I expressed in my opposition. You are an admin. I think that this should really be looked into especially when you consider some of the ways that Durova's edit interests parallel Cirt/Smeelgova. I strongly request that Wikipedia look at this closer. Ebay3 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'd be glad to answer your questions about edit interests. Cirt and I conominated Portal:Textile arts for featured candidacy earlier this year. We also collaborated on the feminism portal, which is currently in portal peer review, and we're collaborating on the Finger Lakes portal. Cirt also assists reviewing triple crown nominations. I doubt any of that is cause for concern, but if you have other questions please do ask. DurovaCharge! 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jossi. I noticed you are a native speaker of Spanish; would you be able to translate some of the pages at WP:PNT? And since you're an admin you'd be able to delete anything you recognise as spam or non-notable. Regards, BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have not written in Spanish for many, many years... so I am a bit rusty to take on this. But I can still take a look and remove NN material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | 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) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE
WP:AE#Personal attack by Jossi at Talk:Millennium '73 --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)