User talk:Jossi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:47, 2 September 2007


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #207

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.

“

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.

”

— Woodrow Wilson

28th President of the United States

~ Post new messages to the bottom of the page ~
~ Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here ~
~ Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassing me or others ~

Comments which fail to follow these requests may be immediately deleted

Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Jossi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

hi!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

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.

Another "Dr" Lisboa on Prince Henry the Navigator complaint

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 "KjÃ¦rlighetspar" 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 "KjÃ¦rlighetspar" ("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 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

SociableLiberal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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)

Exactly. Please do not re-add material that violates policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Thanks for Extension

Dear Jossi,

Many thank for giving me (and everyone else out there) until the eighth to get the citations in.

Destruction of 20 citations on Armstrong page

Dear Jossi, An unknown editor has come in and has deleted 20 citations, and actually removed details in the references that directed readers and editors exactly where to look in the linked sources for the reference. Can I revert this? In our effort to resolve the controversy on the article and work out a consensus, it having a destabilizing effect (e.g. I reverted the whole thing tonight but that undid some good stuff someone else did to get a proper template for the citations). It's a little frustrating and just seems to be complicating things unnecessarily.Jebbrady 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

Hey Jebb. Look, I cannot babysit that article... Find some common ground with other involved editors, and if that is not happening, please pursue dispute resolution. I am willing to help here and there, but I am not on call... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, FYI, dispute resolution has now reached arbitration. Thank you for your help here July 21 and 25. I filed a WQA on July 21 here and I stepped away from the article myself July 31 to provide Jebbrady with the time he asked for to revise it (you had suggested a couple of weeks; he wanted "a month or better"). You had originally blocked one of his socks for vandalism in March which is described by EdJohnston in the July 21 SOCK report I filed here. I filed a second SOCK report August 17 here. The article in contention has now been submitted for arbitration by SarekOfVulcan here. -- Lisasmall | Talk 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the arb case is still open and there's an RFC/user case now open at this link. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Morgan

Hello Jossi,

I see that the last time the IP editing ban was placed on this article it was you who put it there. I was wondering if you could do that again. Three ips within 36 hours have tried to start the same editting war that was in place two months ago.

Thank you for any help you can provide. -Kirkoconnell 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Categories

First draft

I've completed a first draft regarding the first/second class distinction idea. Take a look over it and leave some thoughts if you would. Make adjustments or tweak it, if you have some ideas. Cheers! Vassyana 08:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surely take a look and see if I can improve upon your brilliant prose! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chuckle* You flatter too much! I've made some significant revisions since the last feedback and some additional thought. Let me know what you think of the latest draft. Vassyana 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another revision. Let me know how it's shaping up. Vassyana 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help if you have time

When you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a person that believes on certain racists ideas, that slowly emerge as the arguments progresses. I will weigh in if I see that I can contribute, but I think you and others are doing quite well already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your opinion on this

Hi, Jossi. I'd like the opinion of a Wikipedia veteran like yourself on this decision I just made to delete some material. [1] Thanks! TimidGuy 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it is a bit of trivia. But it is harmless. Many articles have a "In popular culture" sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Will restore. TimidGuy 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

First, I'd like to apologize to you for a certain heated exchange we had some weeks back at UCFD. I sometimes get passionate about stuff, and I overdid it. That being said, I'd like to caution you about the POV-pushers on the White people article, as trhey are very good at baiting people into a revert war and using inappropriate warning templates (and getting away with it too!). I'm thinking this may need to be escalated beyond mere MedCab into something else (looks like Medcab will be turned down by them anyway), but I'm not sure what the next step should be. In any case, I'm loath to let them undo a day's work by nearly a dozen editors, but I'm nearing my 3RR limit myself, and I don't want to be accused of "gaming the system" by cutting it too close (what was done to Muntuwandi). In any case, your help on the article is appreciated.--Ramdrake 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk?

Hi Jossi,

I'm just wondering if you could talk to User:ConfuciusOrnis. He's been edit warring along with Antelan on the Psychic surgery and other articles, and being uncivil. Following me around. I warned him and got this response. These aren't all the diffs, I think he was uncivil on the talk page a few more times. All they do, along with the summaries, is give a flavor:

obstructionist troll —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Come to think of it, your opinion in that article would be appreciated. Here is the currnet lead:

Psychic surgery is a phenomenon that originated in the 20th Century and has been deemed a form of medical fraud.[1][2][3] During psychic surgery, practitioners appear to perform painless surgery using their fingers and unsterile tools.[3] They say that they extract "tumors" or other pathological masses such as pus or bones from the patient's body through an incision.[4] Psychic surgery is most prevalent in its countries of origin: Brazil and the Philippines.

Psychic surgery has been denounced by the US Federal Trade Commission as a "total hoax",[2] and the American Cancer Society maintains that psychic surgery may cause needless death by keeping the ill away from life-saving medical care.[3] Professional skeptics say that such paranormal talents do not exist, and argue that sleight of hand can best explain psychic surgery.[5][6]

I kinda think we should define first. Then blast it (; –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User inquiry

Since we don't really share POV etc on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I thought I would ask you about User:Alithien, because I am increasingly concerned he is just trolling.

For example, after I reverted some reformatting he did to the talk page, with a nice, civil explanation, he just went around and accused me of WP:OWN.

Am I over reacting? Or is he not being productive? I am specially worried because he put about two days ago in his talk page a message saying "This editor will not contribute any more to wikipedia." but he continues to intervene in talk pages and in some cases articles. I do not think he is being productive, regardless of POV. What do you think? Thanks!--Cerejota 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota,

let's forget your personal attacks.

concerning my talk page, it is true I am a little bit fed-up by wp, particularly wp:en.

But about my neutrality and productivity, just read this article and the talk page that goes with it :

1947–1948 Civil War in mandatory Palestine

Until yesterday evening, any single information in that article was from me and wikipedia can benefit of this thanks to the support of user:it's-is-not-a-genitive who translated this.

Thank to this, half of the article concerning the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is not a battlefield anymore and thanks to this, good editors come back and work on it (I mean, people who knows about the topic and who have books written by scholars concerning this).

We are currently working on the translation of fr:massacre de Qibya (again for which I am the main contributor), which is a featured article on wp:fr but pov-disputed here.

So, please, don't come and talk about "productivity" with such sentences such as : "I do not think he is being productive, regardless of POV"; I think he is trolling.

Alithien 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your civility warning

I do not think it's fair to be given a civility warning at the request of your friend whom you quote on your user page when in fact he was guilty of civility violations actually directed at another editor (called me a "bullshit-artist") and in fact my statements were not clearly incivil. I was providing my impression of the aesthetics of a collage ("vomitous" meaning it had made me fell ill like I said - editors often give aesthetic opinions on editorial matters ranging from "disjointed" or "bad layout" to "unappealing" or "confusing" to perhaps stronger opinions) and my factual interpretation of the content of the collage ("degenerate" is to my knowledge a technical term for the albino at least). I'm not clear which part of what I said is prohibited. At any rate, if there are to be civility warnings for the perhaps minor incivility it should be given to both sides. At this point I do not think you should consider yourself an uninvolved party. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any lack of civility exhibited in that page, besides your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is calling someone a "bullshit artist" and telling them not to get "hysterical" not incivility? How is applying the term "degenerate" to a photograph of a person with a genetic disease incivil? It's factual. Is there a list of terms that are civil or not? I guess I will call other editors bullshit artists and hysterical whenever I like, but refrain from applying accurate labels to photographs of non-editors with genetic diseases. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear on one thing: I do not like what you say, the way you speak, and your overall editing attitude. I am willing to address you only because this is Wikipedia. And that is the only reason why others do the same. Just be extremely cautious with your language. And do not post in my talk page anymore. Use the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own your talk page and you are being incivil. You also cannot explain your warning so I will file it under "hysterical" "bullshit" which is apparently the appropriate label for editors one disagrees with. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:TALK. As for your comment related to albinos being "degenerate", how do you know what is the color of my skin? What if I am an albino myself? You cannot use Wikipedia talk pages to make such opinions public, you can use your blog or a personal home page to do so. I am saying this again: be extremely cautious with your language and the way you express yourself in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashanami Sampradaya

You had given a better classification of 10 Sampradāyas of Dashanāmi than exists in the current version ; the current version shows 12 Sampradāyas which does not match with the name Dashanāmi. Will you like to pay attention to this problem ? -Vinay Jha _Talk 07:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Thank you for your email. I apologise, I did not understand this site. I was an 'angry editor....as you could see my spelling was awful. It's hard to see something in print that all journalist around the world are using as fact even though nothing is backed up. How do I write to your talk page rather than being on a message board? Best wishes F x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fedupwiththis (talk • contribs).

Way off topic

Hey, your DA gallery has nothing since 2005. Have you stopped painting, or just stopped uploading? "Oluwa" is my favorite. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) and contribute if you would like

I'm asking the major contributors to Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) to see my request for participation in a research review leading up to a significant rewrite of the article. Please take a moment to see my comments at the top of that talk page and reply on that talk page. VisitorTalk 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Did you know the policy page has been protected for several days, and there is a heavy debate in many threads on the talk page about whether the policy is too strict and people should be able to make their own inferences from primary sources in writing articles? When you have a chance, check it out, see if you can make sense of it. That it is protects - and there is talk of unprotecting it though I see no consensus on the page - concerns me and it bears watching and perhaps strategic comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a Wikibreak due to travel and missed all that. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that is necessary. From time to time people challenge established policies and that is part and parcel of what Wikipedia is. I do not see that the challenge is such that requires an RfC, but I have not been involved enough during tghe last week to make that assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the issue still worries me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Vassyana's proposal? It may just do the job... See below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly revised my proposal, in an attempt to reflect legitimate concerns raised on all sides on the policy talk page. A major change is dropping the language discussing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I try to rely on the "reliable third-party publications" distinction made by Wikipedia:Verifiability that has a clear and exceedingly broad consensus. Please take a look over the new draft and let me know your thoughts (User:Vassyana/Sources proposal). I'm interested in soliciting some feedback before submitting the revised proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very good. Why don't you offer it in the NPOR discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a warm endorsement. However, I wanted to get a few eyes to look over it to make sure the idea had some merit before creating another huge thread. :-P Vassyana 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is to the the above

I am working on a period film article, and there has been some back and forth regarding the various historical inaccuracies of the film (and no, we aren't talking about A Knight's Tale or any Arthurian flick, thank God). Another editor's position is that the historicval inaccuracies are contradicted by historical fact, and that citation pointing out the actual accuracy is not synthesis, as it is pointing out the truth. My interpretation of Synthesis is that we need to find reviews or articles that address the historical inaccuracies within the scope of the film, tying the two together - otherwise, we cannot include them. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arcayne. Most definitively, we cannot use Wikipedia to publish corrections of historical facts presented in a film, unless these inaccuracies are already described in published sources which are reliable. Let me know the name of the article and I may take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are darn scary - I got knocked offlinefor a bit by the gf, and wasn't able to get back to you. Yet you found it easily enough. Thanks for the assist. I really appreciate it. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vastly cool userpage tabs

Jossi, in slavish imitation, I have tried to add tabs to my userpages:

but apparently my imitation was not slavish enough. I thought I was precise! Can you take a peek and tell me how I messed up? Something buried in "preferences", perhaps? You have my permission to tweak, if you feel like it. Conversely, if you don't have time to look, I'll understand. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I think I have this figured out. I need to leave your name in the template, right? Before the first pipe? (Because you're the creator?) That's what I did, and it works now. If this is an inappropriate or unwelcome use of your template, please let me know. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR favor

Hi. I have created a new page, Wikipedia: Proposal to replace No Original Research. Can you go over the talk on the now too long talk page for NOR and identify any talk you think belongs with this nascent proposal, and move it to its' talk page? I will ask Dreadstar and BrigitteSB to do the same. I have already done a fair amount of refactoring at the talk page, and given that I just created this new proposal page, I would rather trust someone else's judgement as to what talk, specifically, to move. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal ended

Due to feedback, I realize the proposal really does encompass a lot more than just original research, despite the intent. I raised the issues appropriate to reliable sources at the reliable sources talk page. I am still pondering in regards to NOR. Cheers! Vassyana 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 314: / Line 314: @@
 Hi.  I have created a new page, [[Wikipedia: Proposal to replace No Original Research]].  Can you go over the talk on the now too long talk page for NOR and identify any talk you think belongs with this nascent proposal, and move it to its' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposal_to_replace_No_Original_Research&action=edit talk page]?  I will ask Dreadstar and BrigitteSB to do the same.  I have already done a fair amount of refactoring at the talk page, and given that I just created this new proposal page, I would rather trust someone else's judgement as to what talk, specifically, to move.  Thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]   |  [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
+== Proposal ended ==
+Due to feedback, I realize the proposal really does encompass a lot more than just original research, despite the intent. I raised the issues appropriate to reliable sources at [[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Crucial_aspects_of_reliability|the reliable sources talk page]]. I am still pondering in regards to NOR. Cheers! [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)