User talk:Jossi

Jossi is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #201

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.

Mount Kailash

Jossi,

I appreciate what you are doing to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, however I feel that including the part on Jainism and maybe even the Bon faith are unnecessary. If I am approaching this the wrong way, please take the correct actions for those pieces of information to be removed. It just seems as if with Jainism it has been forcefully put on there. Remember what is old is not always right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.168.246 (talk • contribs)

to me this is a pocket monster and i thought it was okay to post it so why do you feel differently http://www.forumspile.com/Goatse-TubGirl.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.3.52 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prop. 5

I thought we'd handled all of your issues. If there are others please use the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue. The issue is that Steve, the mediator, has requested to be the one to assess consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studies of DLM

Hi Jossi. I noticed you dropped a bunch of names for people who have done studies on the talk page for Prop 5[1]. Conway, Flo & Siegelman, Downton, Barret...do you have more information (titles, pub dates, journal names) on these studies? I might be able to pull some of them and give a read, see if I can flesh out that section.

I'm particularly interested in studies that you feel would give balance to what's already there. You mentioned "others", so if you think of any more let me know, even if they're obscure. Anything I find I'd be happy to share with anyone who wants a copy.

Thanks Mael-Num (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most extensive study is by Downton. The source is an entire book so I cannot share that... Other sources have been used in that proposal already. Comway and Seiegelman study is so poor and statistically meaningless that it is not worth discussing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you throw a few titles my way? The Dowton book is Sacred Journeys? Anything else? Even obscure stuff...I've got pretty good library access. Mael-Num (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Sacred Journeys ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jossi. And if you think of anything down the road, please don't hesitate to ask. I would like to help your side of the article out, if I can, to keep the playing field level; they have more hands and eyes to do research with. Mael-Num (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a quick question... Sacred Journeys redirects to Sacred Journeys (book). Would it be more in line with style to move the latter to the former? Mael-Num (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The mediator, Steve Crossin, is the one who asked for the protection via IRC. I therefore protected it. --Chetblong (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, sorry if you didn't know about it, Jossi. You can discuss this with me, I did however see than an edit was made without clear consensus. Now, normally, I wouldn't have an article protected in this instance, but further on in the case, more proposals will be created, and I feel that more edits like this will be made without clear consensus, and in the interest of the mediation and to prevent heated discussion from such edits, I requested protection. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to protect as there was no edit war, Steve. Will mad a mistake by implementing a proposal and I corrected it. I request that the article gets unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in protecting the article right now, since all involved editors should be working on the proposals over on Steve's talk page, this will prevent random drive-by's, or editors who just decide to abandon the process. Indeed, I think this should help focus the editors on the progress we are trying to make, as they will not have the recourse to go off on their own, ignoring the idea of consensus, which is what we're after here, right? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no harm, but there is no need. See WP:PROTECT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the article page? I actually thought about the protection for a few hours, then, yes, I did have the page unprotected, an error of judgment on my part, and I do apologise. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...arguably the harm is that it might discourage editors from participating. Editors walk away and forget to return. Even when the block is lifted, it can cause people to become "gun-shy", giving the impression that a small misstep might have major consequences.

In the future, maybe just implement a block on anonymous editors? All the regulars on these articles, I think, can be trusted not to do anything naughty. Just my two cents. Mael-Num (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I'm jealous

For all this time that I've known you, I only just now took a look at your artwork. They're very good, I'm very impressed. I've dabbled in oils, mostly landscapes and simple still compositions. I don't even attempt portraits. I wish I could even approach your level of skill. Are these oils, or digital? Do you touch up with digital tools? What technique did you use on "Woman4000x" and "Oluwa"? It looks like some kind of impasto. The same with "Stone"? I'd like to be able to tell you which is my favorite...I don't think I can pick.

These are fantastic. You should share more of these on your front page. I've asked a couple of folks on IRC and they said they haven't seen your work. They should, it's great. Mael-Num (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All digital. Using some techniques that I call "computer assisted painting". I use a pressure sensitive tablet and stylus, using a real photo as a reference, reducing it first it to a palette of 8 to 16 colors via vectorization, and then I trace it, using the trace as the starting point. An example of such step can be seen here [2] (click "full view" in the top left of screen). I then use a combination of tools: StudioArtist 3.0 (Mac only) and Painter for brushwork, and Photoshop for color correction. Example of final work: [3]. Oluva was done in StudioArtist that is an amazing (but quite complex) tool: http://www.synthetik.com/ . To tell you the truth, betwween work, family and Wikipedia, not much time left for these explorations! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that feeling, but looking at your work, I think it's high time I found time for more practice. Thanks, and hopefully you'll find some, too! Mael-Num (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Jossi, I've been asked if you have IRC, do you by any chance? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am logged in now. My nick is "jossi". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I frequent #wikipedia-en-admins as well as #wikimedia-otrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your nick? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nick is SteveCrossin . I'm generally in #wikipedia-en, as I don't have access to the admin channel, well, not yet. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Master

Hello Jossi, When you find time I'd like to discuss the Perfect Master dmg page with you. I know you have worked hard on it. Someone tagged the article as needing work and I think I see why. I don't know if Meher Baba coined the word "perfect master" but he is the only one that I can verify used this precise term. Dmg pages I think are for multiple occurances of the same term. The way the dmg page is now it is more like the reader is expected to assume to know the meaning of the term from its sound, and then procedes to point to a concept that parallels that idea best from several traditions. My proposal is for an improved version of the Perfect Master (Meher Baba) article to replace the current Perfect Master dmg page and then have a link to a literal dmg page like "Perfect Master (disambiguation)" at the top of the page. Please discuss. I don't want to do anything without your approval. But I see none of these other articles are really articles on that term. Also the PM Baba page could be improved to include other references besides Baba's use, but with the same connotation. So I'm saying replace "Perfect Master" with an article and have also a dmg page. Tommytocker (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss in that article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contributions

Hi, because of the global accounts, I changed my user name from User:BigDevil (talk) to User:BlueDevil (talk). Can you do something for my contributions? Thanks.--BlueDevil (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Speaks

Hi Jossi, you have marked God Speaks for third party sources. I haven't found any and I doubt any exist to the present moment. What I have done here is simply describe the contents of the book. There is not an inkling of opinion or point of view in it. I'm afraid the tag will accompany the article for long times to come, as I don't see what can be done about it. Hoverfish Talk 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am effectively banned

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are... what Vassyana is saying is: I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Muhammad_Nasiruddin_al-Albani

I made multiple, atomic edits, each with an edit summary. Check the page history. How does this constitute vandalism? To illustrate, in Al-Albani's bio: I removed the word important (which is hotly disputed), replaced the word prodigious with prolific (arguably a more neutral term), and removed his specialisation in fiqh (Al-Albani's education was predominantly in Hadith, as per the Wikipedia entry itself). Please explain how any of this is biased or vandalistic. If anyone is being biased, it is User:MezzoMezzo with his constant reverts of my edits. -- 05:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, this anon also tried to add a reference based off of a website called marifah.net. I know that site well - it's highly sectarian and far from a reliable source. They also have a huge ax to grind regarding the guy this article is about. It would appear to be that this anon is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise the fact that he doesn't like this al-Albani person. Given that they almost immediately accused me of being biased simply for reverting their edits, I have a feeling this could slide into WP:DE territory. Just a heads up, i'll be watching this myself though you're in a better position than I to make a judgment call on this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Anon' here. I do not intend to engage in any disruptive edits. It is simply my desire for Al-Albani's page to maintain a more neutral tone. How can a figure as controversial as Al-Albani not have any criticism whatsoever? It is clear to even the most casual observer that MezzoMezzo and others are fighting to maintain a one-sided representation of the late Shaykh. I invite you to review the history of the page to see who is really on a soap box here. In any case, as a gesture of good will, I have removed the link to marifah.net, and I apologise for any indiscretions on my part. I have, however, kept the mention of the debate and the book, and I will continue to dispute this utterly biased farce of an entry. Please let me know if I make any mistakes as I proceed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.163.18 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former 'Anon' here, I've just registered an account. If the delay was bad form, please accept my apologies. I'm still learning the ropes :) Thirteen36 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears that this is destined to escalate. Jossi, I hate to bother you, but since you've already taken note of this disruptive pattern i've responded to the issues in question here on the article's talk page. It might help to resolve this quickly if you added your thoughts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATT Question

Hi. You posed a question at the ATT discussion. Rather than troll the poll, I'd like to offer my answer here. I think that any time you summarize text, there is subjectivity in what is included, deleted, or clarified. Thus the result of a summary can be disputed as accurate, and the result rejected. Another issue is whether the summary is effective in adding clarity or brevity -- does it add value or just further instruction creep. I think that with the best of intentions we are developing too many conflicting and redundant instruction pages at WP. What do you think? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin. I think that a summary can be done and is useful. Many editors think that just compling with the guideline of WP:RS is enough to add material to an article, when actually, you need in most cases to have attribution, as well as ensure that NPOV, and OR are also incorporated in editorial judgments. So I am for keeping that page as a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[4] Interested? Jayen466 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related: [5], [6] plus old discussion Might be good to establish consensus on this issue, one way or the other (though policy appears clear). Best, --Jayen466 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had quite enough of that specific user's WP:OWN, personal attacks, and publicly stated biased attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPJ blocks

Jossi, you recently made some blocks of alleged RPJ socks as logged here. I don't know whether or not they're socks, but RPJ's ban expired last year, so my reading of the case is that it shouldn't matter. Does their behavior merit one year blocks even independent of that ArbCom case? Mtracy9 is requesting to be unblocked.--chaser - t 10:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country‎

I discussed deletions. No answer because there isn't any. Material is innuendo and/or irrelevant to the article's title. Italy's material was on processing possible cases, not on cases themselves. Student7 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, material seemed to be well sourced. May I suggest you get a few more eyeballs by asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Seeing's how you dealt with the last sockpuppetry flareup from the Barack Obama article, would you mind taking a look at this new discovery? Shem^(talk) 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look?

Hi Jossi - could you intervene here? Thanks Tvoz/talk 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it would have been more enlightening to include the link... thanks Tvoz/talk 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this background too: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article ownership

I would like to "own" the article Copper Scroll. (Or have it owned by a similarly-minded editor). Here is my reason. After the initial thrill of finding it, researchers have been totally unable to discover what the heck the scroll refers to. Most likely they never will. True research, sensing a dead end, has stopped a long time ago. In retrospect, the poor folks copying it 2 millenia ago didn't really know either, but didn't want to jeopardize their heritage by not passing along what seemed like incredibly important information. The article is in pretty good shape, no thanks to me! It was pretty much that way when I found it.

The only changes that are made, unfortunately, are triggered by a rerun of a disreputable television program where pseudo professionals were paid to make outrageous speculation about the scroll, none of them substantiated by scholars. The reruns (when made) trigger a rash of "good-faith" but invariably spurious entries.

In the best of all possible worlds, the scroll should be permanently locked by an admin and opened only after someone convinced him that there was really something worthwhile to put in it.

Another way is to set it up for automatic (bot) revert for the article itself. The proposing editor could justify his reasons in the discussion, maybe convincing the "owner" that he had run across something really worthwhile.

I realize that this is a very unusual situtation. About the only one I have run across so far. Can this sort of thing be done? Student7 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... This is a wiki-based encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What you can do is to ask for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]