User talk:Jossi

Skip to table of contents


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #39

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.

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

Roman lettering

Jossi, I am bringing this here because I see that you have given some attention to the Calligraphy article. There is a related article (linked to the calligraphy article) called Roman square capitals that I rewrote and moved to Roman imperial capitals yesterday. This morning it was moved back and reverted. The information in the article is wrong in virtually every respect, including the title. (I have been a professional calligrapher for about 20 years, and would not have made the changes without knowing what I was doing.)

Any suggestions? I am getting tired of having to fight over every change I make to a WP article, and at this point would leave it completely wrong rather than get into another editing conflict. (By the way there is an edit on the article's talk page (the only edit there) dated 11:26, 6 June 2006, that points out the problem; and which I corrected, and is now reverted back. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Square caps" refers to a manuscript style that looks like this: [1]

Imperial caps look like this [2] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look later on. Thanks for the heads-up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why we don't discuss this in talk? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk page? And talk to whom? It is my experience that editors who write edit summaries like "huh?" when reverting my edits are not very open to discussion. I regret leaving the article in such miserable shape, but sometimes nothing can be done. However, if you have any suggestions I will try. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman square capitals page, and to me? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this discussion to Talk:Roman square capitals, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, after thinking it over more, your suggestion of two articles (a sort of two state solution) seems the best possible. Would there be any problems if I simply went ahead and created a new article, called Imperial Roman Capitals, and using the material I used in my now reverted version (but using a different image)? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

Is there any particular reason why you reverted here while disregarding and bypassing the ongoing discussion at the talk page? I didn't notice any explanation from you in your edit summary or at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment in talk. Note that WP:3RR is not an entitlement: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Maybe you should look at applying WP:BRD instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply that followed your revert. I'm still unclear why you think the material should be in the article, but we can discuss it more at the talk page. I realize that 3RR is not an entitlement. It's frustrating to do the "R" in BRD, whereas the person who does the "B" refuses to do the "D" and instead repeats the "B".Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is called WP:BRRR : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny "J"

Should probably go full-protect. Half of the people adding his death are accounts and semi won't even slow them down. HalfShadow 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Sarah Palin

I just added a lengthy section about how policies relate to this article, can you go over it and make sure I didn't make any mistakes? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology article on wiki- question about image

Hi - there is an image of a 16th century medieval european woodcut of the zodiac signs on various astrology pages, and when i click on it your name is at the bottom. i apologize for being a new user of Wikipedia and i'm not sure if you are the person to contact, but i would be very interested in finding the source of that image...any information would be really appreciated! Thanks, Beth Bme204 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Pic

Hi Jossi- I really like your image at Lipstick on a pig and fully support your recent change to it. I think the poll on the talk page is biasd and meaningless. Take a look at the quantity of reversions of User:71.178.193.134 who created the poll and strongly objects to the images. Take care, IP75 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

My apologies for being such a misguided and wrong "rule tool" on the Palin talk page, re: the Newsweek article. I thought I was citing an important policy, and citing it properly. I stand corrected. Best wishes! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment revert

Hello, you recently reverted an abusive comment about this user. Please understand the context of this comment and reconsider your action. The user made the comment as part of canvassing/flaming drive relating to a sock puppetry accusation. This has been identitifed and redressed by Binksternet. Please consult here for context. Also please see the comments left on the offending user's talk page. I would ask that you please undo your unwarranted revert, as the user's actions amount to disruption. Thanks S.Semitransgenic (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but note that refactoring comments from talk page discussions is not the appropriate way to deal with this (See WP:REFACTOR). Please seek the assistance of an univolved editor or admin by placing a notice at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have an ongoing dispute with this user(s), so you will be better served by allowing an uninvolved admin deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~there was input from various editors. thanks for your help.~~ Actually, can you explain why you think it is necessary to leave a disruptive comment on a talk page that in no way relates to the article subject matter at hand, and why you think it is necessary for me to have run around the mill to remove something that is quite obviously posted inappropriately and in a manner that serves only to make a personal attack on another editor? I find your approach to this somewhat unsual, especially as you have the required administrative powers to address this. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I restored the comment and advised you to pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Excuse me, but I find common sense somehow lacking in the action you took. It is the user who engaged in WP:CANVASS that you should be advising about WP:DR. I find your attitude unacceptable, and the statement Please seek the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin contradictory when you are actually in a position to make an intelligent judgment call based on facts. A simple look at the users talk page would have confirmed that a problem was noted by other editors, but you chose to ignore this. Believe me, the real reason for this action has not been lost on me. You've made your point. Have a nice day. Semitransgenic (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on Jason Scott case

Hi Jossi, please have a look at the above; it has been prodded for deletion, but I don't think the reasoning is sound. The previous article appears to have been about Jason Scott, the person; this article is about the civil suit that followed his kidnapping. While I agree that Jason Scott does not fulfil notability requirements, the civil suit was eminently notable, with wide press coverage, and resulted in a landmark decision; the article cites plenty of sources, to which dozens could be added. Cheers, Jayen466 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Jossi; I've removed the prod. Cheers, Jayen466 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Sarah Palin

Hi Jossi, I wanted to let you know that the article Public image and reception of Sarah Palin was redirected to the above title and about 80% of the content was removed. What do you think about this? IP75 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the massive deletion of content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]