User talk:Jossi/Archives/13

Jossi, What does one do when there are multiple edits blanking out whole sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=87259425&oldid=87178532 Riveros11 has had other warnings but this is the first time he has done whole sections in multiple edits. Can you advice me on what to do beyond the rev. of the edits. PEACETalkAbout 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. And you can call me Jossi. I am an admin, but that is not a title, but a duty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion n this re 3RR blocking? William M. Connolley 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Both editors need to stop editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both may have been acting in good faith, William. I would suggest giving both amnesty, and given the specifics of the legal imbroglio, to err on the side of caution and not link to any possible copyvios from that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I respect your decision User:Jossi and it actually seems fair, and I do like the way you have edited the article recently and I also think that that seems fair, don't you think someone else should have closed the 3RR violation section? Particularly given your close association to the article and history of editing it as well? I had thought that was the point of bringing something to the Administrators Noticboard, to get an impartial look at something? But again, thank you for your fair decision, and fair recent spate of edits on the article. Yours, Smeelgova 19:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Another admin looked at it and agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you enormously! I think one thing is unclear: two entities have asserted copyright:

1. 1 one implicitly (France 3 television) and
2. 2 one explicitly (Landmark Education, for use of its material)

No one disputes that "France 3" television still holds copyright, and under WIkipedia copyvio policy, the editor wishing to add the link has the duty to investigate that the link target is reasonably free of copyvios. This issue had been brought up repeatedly prior to the 3RR complaint.

Thanks for your verdict. My question now: Instructions are once again on the web page how to get illegal material. Can someone please take that down?

Sm1969 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. I have explained how this can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Talk page. I don't see why you are telling people how to get copyrighted material of "France 3" television? That is, effectively, putting up links to copyrighted material, and even telling them that it is there. The fact that EFF does this is irrelevant. Wikipedia has its own policy. Where do we disagree? Sm1969 02:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sm1969's prior argument was that linking to a page with suspected copyright infringement consists of contributory copyright infringement, when Landmark clearly has no copyright claim over the video, and France 3 has made no objection as shown in the Motion to Quash. Now, he is complaining about referencing links, that reference the location of the video. Surely this is completely legal, and surely no one is going to go around suing the person who is pointing to the person who is referencing the location of the video. I mean, that just sounds terribly convoluted and frivolous. Smeelgova 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Whether "France 3" has made an objection or not in the motion to quash is irrelevant. The Wikipedia policy states that they must give permission. I am complaining about telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. The intent of the Wikipedia policy is to prevent contributory copyright infringement, to prevent telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. The Wikipedia policy is very clear--you need sound basis to believe they released copyright, and you do not have it. The people they would sue are those with deep pockets, not some little link poster, but that is irrelevant to the policy underlying Wikipedia's policy. Sm1969 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. So maybe an argument can be made for not linking to the site that has the video itself, but linking to sites that link to the video, there is no liability here. Smeelgova 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just be sure that language is not telling people how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. Sm1969 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you take your dicussion to one of your talk pages or to the article talks's page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. The article's talk page would be appropriate, though ironically it seems we may actually be coming to a consensus here. Smeelgova 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Jossi, I appreciate your stopping by the BK page. However, please take a look at the version by riveros11 (18:37 nov11) As you pointed out, there is a section which may need to be re-written (extensive quote) however, the rest of the article has reliable sources in it. I believe you edit it a version which was changed by user talkabout. That version lacks reliable sources. At it stands right now, user Brahmakuris.info took the {sprotect} tag out, user talkabout has changed the previous version (vandalized the page) as discussed in the Talk page. Please note that Brahmakumaris.info and user TalkAbout are in the same group. Their animosity towards Brahma Kumaris is well documented in the archives. I would like to request the {sprotect} tag to be placed again and to revert changes to the one which has reliable sources, namely the version by riveros11 (18:37, nov 11) As you pointed out, the section marked to be re-written will be re-written. Thank you, 72.91.4.91 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7 /riveros11[reply]

Dear Jossi,

Thank you for clarifying in the article. I need to point out that at least 3 days were given for a final attempt to provide reliable resources. Note "3 day drill" in the talk page for every single part of the article. Needless to say, the previous editors have never produce a single reliable resource. User TalkAbout and the IP address ending in .244 (user known as .244) were the main editors of that article. Since previous notification was given, when do you believe I should erase those parts without reliable resources? Thank You, avyakt7 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three days is quite minimal. Be generous and wait a few more days. You can place a note that "unless sources are provided by such and such date, the material in secton X and sction Y will be removed." That way it is transparent and you give notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before going ahead so, can we just clarify, very specifically, the issues of self-published material I have raised on the topic talk page please. IMHO, Luis has pretty mush steamrollered through a re-write of the article based on the refusal of these which I think is quite unfair.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis, to state that I have never provide a single reliable resource is laughable. Look back through the history of the topic and discussion page and anyone will see that I provide endless citations in balance mostly pro-BKWSU, academic or impartial. Yes, agreed, I mostly built this topic. If you look back at the original article prior to your re-write according to BKWSU PR, it is almost entirely verbatim BKWSU teachings - [1] references; [2], comparison [3] or through the Discussion pages anyone can see my input. You are being utterly dishonest and making prejudicial allegations you cannot support in an attempt to reach your goal.

Perhaps you could help here Jossi.

In Wikipedia:Verifiability [4] it states that, "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, 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, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it."

Luis has claimed that this only refers to the author(s) themselves using the material. I believe this is entirely wrong.

Luis has point blankly refused to allow any citation from BKWSU published material which in essence, of course, make fully public their teachings and beliefs even though the very same publications are used by the academics.

My question here is would such self-published material allow "reasonable" use of BKWSU published material where it is clearly and specifically referenced in a manner that anyone could purchase a book or attend one of their 7,000 centers and request a copy of said materials to check references? For example;

• specific scriptural references or other publicly available materials and
• the organization's own websites?

BK Luis has stated that it is only acceptable if it is easily downloadable but, of course, refuses to accept that if it is downloadable from http://www.brahmakumaris.info even though it is clearly BKWSU produced material, e.g. [5] or [6] where a BK produced teaching aid states End of the World/Destruction in 1976 after 40 years Confluence Age etc.

It is understandable why the BKWSU might want to bury this information but I believe in the public interest for it to remain.

Lastly, what group exactly am I meant to be a part of with any other contributor!?!

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 09:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jossi and Sethie,

As the talk page shows in the archives, users "195.82.106.244", "talkabout" and supporters would like to use materials which belong to Brahma Kumaris which by definition are not considered "reliable sources." Besides, even if these materials were used by user .244 and group of supporters, these materials were being used in a highly biased way, in a detrimental way towards the organization which they pretend to use to "inform" the public thus, it could never be considered "self-serving" but rather contentious.

There is a point that I would like to stress. Articles which belong to an encyclopedia must be non-biased. User 195.82.106.244 and supporters being the originators of this article do not fit this category. They were "ex-Brahma Kumaris" and by definition, biased. As a matter of fact, user.244 has a public website located at: www.brahmakumaris.info which notably portrays an antagonistic vision towards Brahma Kumaris. I thought, I should mention this to you Jossi and Sethie as a background for your help in keeping this article as non-biased as possible. That is the reason why academia has been highly quoted in the majority of this article. It is non-biased research. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi,

Response to Riveros11 is here:[7] Thanks..PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you Jossi if you can follow non-indented text ... I find it too difficult to do so. I'd really like this issue of citations put to bed and the topic be allowed to return to some semblence of reasonableness. Let's be frank, the BKs dont want to allow BKWSU self-published material because Western elements of the BKWSU think some of it is too wild for the public to swallow, e.g all the channelled messages, mediumship, millenarianist stuff. Actually, the academics referenced neatly describe this internal schism between the hard core and the new agey.

I don't expect you to trawl through the references/bibliography/discussion pages BUT the references and citations are specific and endless. It has all been covered IF anyone is actually willing to read the material. And, all the accusations aside, I have and I provided 95% of those references. Even the ones the BKs are using. A wiki topic is not required to be a copy and paste out of some sociologists' lecture, especially when the topic races sharply outside of sociology's ground. 195.82.106.244 09:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm not sure if this is the right place to talk to you back for welcoming me on my own user page but anyway thanks for the welcome hehe I find Wikipedia very helpful and I believe wikis are the next step on the evolution of free and accessible content. I'll try to contribute when I can, mostly I think I'll be just doing minor edits (typos and stuff). Or maybe if something important from the Philippines or related to it happens. Thanks again! (four tildes i hope i got it right) Berserkerz Crit 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you need any assistance, drop me a note. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a user with whom you are familiar was warned [8] about this edit. Most recently he made this edit referring to another user's signature as "splat". I'm sory to bother you, but please take a look. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your intervention. --BostonMA ^talk 19:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. As always, one attracts more bees with honey than with vinegar. See: User_talk:ALM_scientist#Request. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. But then you can't drive a nail without a hammer either.DocEss 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to escalate things unnecessarily. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok ok . Message received and acknowledged.DocEss 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your recent edit, I was simply trying to give User:Grub and User:Sm1969 a chance to have some open communication and interact. But it was not my initial edit in the first place, at any rate. Yours, Smeelgova 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good luck with that! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to go for an RfC or arbcom on this or something? Two different members of the BLP board have expressed different opinions; we need some closure. I think we also need to have a substantative thing to say to the IPs: "look, this is Wikipedia's official decision, like it or lump it." Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an RfC would be the next step. You can place one at

WP:RFC/P ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The "Baha Faith

]

lol- the origonal post said it was founded in 2006... When I pointed this out as a reason why it was not notable- he changed the date! Sethie 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to

Bahá'í Faith ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow- not a solution I anticipated. I'll let you know if anything else happens. Peace Sethie 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. --

]

PETA

While my comment on

]

That's the spirit. Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, and having a conducive environment for editing requires restrain in the way we express our opinions on talk pages. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the record, as you probably realised, my comment relating to forty years of argument was not meant to apply to wikipedians; wiki, after all, has not been here for forty years.--

Anthony.bradbury 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with

]

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jossi, Is is possible to sprotect the page again? User .244 keeps changing it without previous discussion. I reverted back to an earlier version and the page is reverted again by him. I placed a vandalism tag in his talk page after warning him in the BK talk page without any success. He has placed a vandal warning in my talk page as well after I placed one in his (after warning him.)

It is becoming a nuisance to deal with this problem since I have placed reliable sources all along and user .244 hasn't been able to produce anything yet. As you recall, Friday is the deadline for him. User .244 is intent in damaging the image of Brahma Kumaris. He refuses to use reliable sources as primary means to write this article. I have produced plenty of this kind of material. Why he cannot follow this?

Your help on this is truly appreciated

Thank you, avyakt7 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While visiting your user page for ideas for my own (I stole your tabs, if that is ok...), I noticed an error in your tabs while at your "Artwork" page. The Wikipedia tab was a different name (Wikipedia instead of My work @ Wikipedia), and the page it linked to had not been created. I edited it to make it correct, if that is ok.

Charlesblack 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi,

Per the URL below which discusses an ArbCom ruling Smeelgova was involved in, poorly souced negative material may be reverted as an exception to 3RR. Smeelgova has repeatedly added such poorly sourced negative information, in the case of Sweden unsourced and in the case of Austria, refuted by the US State Department's own web page. Here is the URL and text of the ArbCom ruling involving Smeelgova, and then I have a question for you at the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

Articles regarding ongoing enterprises

2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: I am committed to avoiding edit-warring, and I believe the ArbCom ruling above is on-point for Smeelgova's current edits. If I revert these changes, will you support me any forthcoming 3RR report, and, further, can you assist in stopping Smeelgova's behaviour? I'm at my wit's end with Smeelgova. Sm1969 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom rulings are specific to each case and are not policy. If the current dispute ends up in arbitration, ArbCom members may take previous rulings into account. As with many articles abut which there are strong POVs at play, there is no much else to do than finding a way to collaborate constructively. 3RRs situations will be evaluated by admins in a case by case basis, so if you find yourself in that position, you can raise your arguments at that time. Note that it takes two to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a general principal I can invoke that poorly sourced and, particularly, unsourced negative materials pertaining to an ongoing enterprise (here: Landmark Education) may be redacted without a 3RR being cited against me, if it truly and provably is unsourced? Can't I raise that as a successful defense to an accusation of edit warring/3RR? Granted, I take the risk in a specific instance if I can't prove the negative material is unsourced, but isn't this a specific basis for defense from 3RR/edit-warring? Sm1969 03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we are seeing here is a flawed ends-justify-the-means attempted reasoning to rationalize violating 3RR numerous times on the part of User:Sm1969. I myself have learned this the hard way, I admit, but now I try to watch myself and think and count up my edit history patterns before pressing "save". It appears that User:Sm1969 feels that these rules do not apply to him, when he has other types of arguments to attempt to justify breaking 3RR, time and time again. Smeelgova 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No, Smeelgova, the six edits you cited in the 3RR report are all unsourced--and one directly conflicted by the Official US State Department web page, as I brought up to you. No, you have not learned. Your bringing in the six UNSOURCED edits, in violation of the ArbCom policy that you were warned about. The are black-and-white UNSOURCED and the ArbCom ruling is very clear. You should be cited for 3RR for continually bringing in the same UNSOURCED edits. I hope that Admin Jossi and Admin Connelley look at your specific edits and see my report that they are totally UNSOURCED and look at the ArbCom ruling. Sm1969 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, ArbCom made this an explicit exception to 3RR because the kinds of highly negative TOTALLY UNSOURCED edits damage the organization so affected and damage Wikipedia. ArbCom's precise language is that such edits may be reverted IMMEDIATELY. These are black-and-white UNSOURCED edits. They say NOTHING about Landmark Education. Here is the precise ArbCom quote cited above: "As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule."

Out of respect for not clogging up User:Jossi's talk page again, which I know he doesn't appreciate, this will be my last comment here. But the fact is, we actually had a relatively good dialogue going on at the article's talk page, before you started up your reverting campaign again, summarily removing material that was sourced, without letting the dialogue play out on the talk page. I don't know how to interact and edit when sourced information is summarily removed without leaving time for discussion on the talk page or input from other editors. Smeelgova 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't you redact the 3RR report. As you can see, you may get cited for this. Sm1969 05:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the version below, I extended the table showing the list of organization successions by adding two columns to the right: the first column entitled "customer registrations" and the second column "cumulative customer registrations" as shown in the URL below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&oldid=89157364

User:Smeelgova redacted by edit, even though it was sourced, and put up an "advertising warning." Putting things in a table is one way of communicating, but if Smeelgova can do it, is there anything "advertising oriented" about my doing it?

Thanks for your opinion and I will ask a few other administrators. Sm1969 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section is also duplicate information from other parts of the article. Not to mention that it is information better left to a Corporate Website about the issue, and makes the table take up way too much space and look simply bulky. Smeelgova 07:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please discuss that it the article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I disagree that my edits were disruptive and in lieu of any appeal system - or even parity in treatment between two contesting contributors - I am removing the blocked sign again. A look at the history shows that my submission on the BKWSU article were hugely constructive - if not according to BKWSU PR - detailed and well referenced at the bottom of the article.

It just that I am really neither "skilled" nor inclined to be bothered playing the Wiki war game of building up bogus cases against other users in order to have them blocked in order to have my edits sustained. Are blind to that - in opposition to the ignored efforts I put in to creating consensus via Discussion, Arbitration or Mediation? I am sorry to say but its awfully one sided behaviour.

An article does not need to be a slavish copy and paste from other papers. None of you admins have actually read through all the given references before throwing weigh around. To offer a constructive way forward, if Riveros11 can be held to accept the use of self-published materials as per published wiki policy then I see no problems arising.

195.82.106.244 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the article, do it at the article's talk page/ As for the removal of admin warnings from your talk page, please leave these on the page for a while before archiving. Removing these while you are engaged in a dispute that resulted in warnings and blocks, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi,

I can't find the source anywhere that Smeelgova is referring to. I believe it should be redacted until Smeelgova gives more precise information, including the page number where the article allegedly appears. Sm1969 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss in the article's talk page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you dash off warnings, it would be appropriate if you'd spend some time browsing through the edit history of the article. It shows that other users despite initial reservations have modified it to better represent the same well cited quotation. And you are reporting an edit from a couple of days back! As an admin you should do your homework before issuing warnings based on dated edits on issues that are resolved. btw, the issue was never about defamation as I'd like to quote the WP policy "all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources". The information was referenced through reliable published sources. San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source. So please look at the current situation of the article and don't issue unsubstantiated warnings based on old edit summaries. Idleguy 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idleguy distorted the referenced quote by leaving out a vital part of it, and the insulting edit summary was not from a source, but from Idleguy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't leave out any part, the original source only mentioned that part and I quoted that. The current one mentions the entire section. I admit the edit summary was a bit wayward and am genuinely sorry. Idleguy 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't true that you quoted the source you found. Your source quoted her as saying: "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." (emphasis added)

You quoted her as saying: "'I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself' adding that 'I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day'."

You left out the crucial "Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.)" which explained why she was doing it. That isn't honest editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries cannot be removed, so be very cautious with what you write there, particularly on BLPs. I would also suggest that you take it a bit easier with your edits. Wikipedia

is not a battleground, neither it is a place for advocating for or against a subject. Do that and you will avoid warnings such as the one I placed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Point taken about edit summary. Re edits, it must be noted that

WP:NOT is more applicable for a few editors who are constantly on such pages, whereas I only have a passing interest. In fact i only edited the peta and related pages in the last few days, because it doesn't specify anything about the new animal terrorism act; only to find more discrepancies and missing info in PETA article. Idleguy 06:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't matter how controversial you think PETA and its staff are, you must not only edit using sources, but you must use the sources correctly, and not quote or paraphrase material out of context, or conveniently leave out parts of quotes because they don't suit your aim of demonization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't launch personal attacks stating "demonization" etc. This is the second time you're attempting to do so. It's not my opinion that they are controversial, the FBI too investigated them because of their controversial activities. It appears you just revert before reading the source - for had it been so then you'd have made the inclusion yourself. Remember that i am only a third party and do not hold any personal passion for the organization like you, which seems to colour your thinking. your statement "the PETA edits used terrible sources" in my talk page, when half of the original sources came from US Senate etc. only proves your blatant bias. All you needed to do was request for a better citation in a normal tone - that I've provided now - instead of just accusing others of having demonized your pet article. To think that you accuse others of being rude, when you don't seem too polite either is the irony. Idleguy 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ingrid Newkirk were clearly intended to demonize her. You distorted a quote of hers to make her look bad and you left an insulting edit summary about her. It's totally unacceptable editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I said sorry for the edit summary, but you continue to harp on the same matter. Anything I say or do can and will be seen by you as a demonizing edit. I don't wish to continue this any further. Idleguy 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the edit summary but neglect to explain the distorted quote. Why did you leave out: "Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals)"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your change on Wikipedia:External links and you titled it a "consolidation". However, you omitted a key paragraph that has been a part of this standard for some time:

"A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Did you intend to do this, is it already covered elsewhere, or simply an omission error? To me, this is a key clause and should be retained. BTW, thanks for restoring the Youtube example. I agree with you wholeheartedly! Calltech 17:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-add that sentence witrh some necessary tweaks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "unreferenced" tag you just put onto the article about the Sergeyev Collection, there is an entire list of sources at the bottom of the page. Mrlopez2681 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw that, but it would be best if you can do add some inline references. A further reading section may be also useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing that can conceivably be called a conflict of interest in regard to Wiki. The only person who could be thought of as having a conflict of interest is yourself as you have been and are, on your own admission, a paid employee of Prem Rawat and a "student" of him. I think you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest. It seems to be simpler to make a small edit and discuss once it is up but I am pretty flexible. Tgubler 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware of

WP:COI (see User:Jossi/Disclosure

). As a person that was involved in a legal dispute with a related organization, you could be easily perceived to try and use WP as a way to "get even" after having been found stealing computer data as per your own admission, and the subsequent legal imbroglio in which you were involved. You also forget your mention the fact that you have signed an affidavit in which you state that you did stole that data "with the purpose of harassing and harming Prem Rawat and his students".

Given your very obvious COI, and given the precarious situation you are in as it pertains to editing these articles, I remind you that you can easily contribute to the talk page and have other editors assess your contributions on its merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi,

I went to my bio and saw that it didn't meet requirements. Sorry, I love Wikipedia and don't want to do anything wrong. I'm still not sure I did it right ... but, not sure how else to handle it. I've also created two other bios, trying my best to meet your requirements.

Thank you. Brad Bradfregger 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I would advise you to check if these two persons meet the notability criteria. One way to measure notability would be to find third-party sources about these persons. See Wikipedia:Notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jossi,

I am writing to you again since you are more familiar with the issues we have in that page. User .244 continues to modify the main page. The tags you placed in the article are gone. Moreover, I can place athird warning for vandalism in his talk page, but he will do the same to mine. What alternative do I have? As I said before, user .244 has started this page in wikipedia and he is against our organization. I have supplied reliable sources in the page which is being changed by him. Even the tags you placed are gone now.

User brahmakuris.info has edited all these pages [[9]] on the 15th November that used to link to this page and replaced them all with identical text. I believe this is called a "forest fire". I request that this is looked into.

Also, please take a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris This is the page that has been mirrored. It was started by user .244 as well. Could you check if 195.82.106.244 is a sockpuppet of brahmakumaris.info?

As I checked with you before, I will delete headers without reliable sources this Saturday. Hope to count with your support on this.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all of the above mentioned pages, and I would like to add to the list of "charges" that Bhramakumaris.info archived the discussion page with a lot of current discusions going on. Sethie 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am going back in to contribute to the

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. I have agree fine to work the citation the dominant contributor Brahma Kumari Luis Riveros

is proposing. Much of my edit is in paraphrasing untidy verbatim copy and paste quotation into neater prose. Plpease note the bogus vandalism accusation made.

Riveros had be blocked on the basis of accusation of "not being willing to discuss changes". Wiki records will show that I instigated both a Request for Mediation and a Request for Arbitration with Riveros11 but on both occasions he refused to participate. You and another admin have cited Wiki policy of allowing self-published material which the other editor refuses to accept. I have even accept using the academic citation he suggests but am still subject to skillfully crafted ad hominen attacks by this member of the religious group in question. Please see discussion pages. It is laughable that I am the one being accused on not being willing to discuss!

Yes, it bores the pants of me too ...

So easy on that trigger finger until you have a better overview of what is really going on. Riveros11 seem to have sussed out the miracle of slapping Vandalism warnings on anyone that questions his worldview. 195.82.106.244 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you both to pursue

is not a battleground

. 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I have complied with your suggestion of giving additional days for .244 reliable sources. He has not provided any. He has reverted the page again and blanked his talk page so no one can see that he was blocked before. He has placed 2 warnings in my talk page so he is waiting for me to revert it so I could be blocked. He sent me a message about going into arbitration which I have agreed. I have no heard from him since. Is there any other avenue that I could take? I really do not mind if that article is not there...It wasn't Brahma Kumaris idea to have it there...it was the idea of someone who is against this movement. Could this article be taken off line? (at least while in arbitration) It is not fair to have a version which is innacurate and detrimental to us. Hope to hear from you. avyakt7 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have been created cannot be deleted, unless placed on

WP:AFD. I doubt that deletion is an option, although is some occasions, ArbCom rulings can include "stubbing" an article if there is substantial concern that the article is non-compliant with WP policies. I will check that anon's talk page, as removal of admin notices is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Jossi,

Please see reply in discussion page [10]

TalkAbout 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)PEACE[reply]

For the record Jossi - as user Riveros11 well knows because he was informed on both occasions - both arbitration and mediation failed because he refused to sign up and participate.

I hope that you are getting the jist of this Jossi. It is fairly pointless for me to engage with this BK when he refuses to read, accept or acknowledge any alternative view - and refused to engage in any discussion with third party. If he say he will do so now, it is only to mislead you. A bit like this being a good boy to the admin by giving a few more days. Its bull. If you want, I play along for the sake of experiment. Or you bothered enough to be party to this?

The state of the previous article was fully referenced by the given biography etc. One would have had to actually read the biography to know known that but then an article is not required to be a copy and paste of academic papers. Question;

• Did you manage to clear with him the matter of the self-published material or are we all still in denial of that?

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting

]

Congrats! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi,

You say a "published" source is needed, would a reputable online source work (i.e. MobyGames) or does it need to be an actual magazine or newspaper?

Brad Fregger Bradfregger 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An online source could be OK, if that website is authoritative on the subject. MobyGames.com seems to me to be a discussion forum, and discussion forums are not considered a good source to support claims made in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought, Jossi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, would you mind checking out the discussion at

]

Sure. I'll take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here: [11] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it justified to mention and describe the blog but not say where it is (not link to it, you seem to have read that wrong)? Please respond on Talk:Anne Milton. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wise and appropriate to include a link, or probably better several links, to external General Forums where people can talk about the content of saipansucks.com in ways NOT related to improving it. Otherwise, I predict that the talk page will soon enough become a place where people bicker about saipansucks.com itself. I have seen talk pages of controversial articles become a nightmare. I am just trying to head off a problem, before it even has chance to develop. I do not see anything prohibiting such on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines so I am wondering what you rationale is for several times removing the external link I posted. C.m.jones 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to link to such forums in the headers of talk pages. See

WP:SPAM#Canvassing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see anything relevant to what I am trying to do at

WP:SPAM#Canvassing. C.m.jones 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Show me one article talk page in which there are links to discussion forums placed at the header. We are here writing an encyclopedia, neither advocating for or against anything, nor to engage in discussions or foster discussions about the subjects covered in articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it once but do not recall where. That is where I got the idea from. I am not trying to advocate, engage, foster, whatever, and I do not appreciate having my motives apparently questioned like that. I do not own a forum anywhere, if that is what you are wondering. I am simply trying to head off trouble on the Talk Page. I am trying to shunt people away from the talk page who will probably come to talk, but not about improving the article. I do not care to where users are shunted, there are several places on the Internet that have forums about Saipansucks.com; but if the children do not have a playroom they will play in the living room and disrupt those trying to talk. See what I mean? C.m.jones 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean, but the fway to address this is to enforce talk-page discipline when there is a need for that. I do not see at this point that there is a need to ask the few contributors to the article to go somewhere else to discuss the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Enforce talk-page discipline" - exactly what I would rather avoid!

The header at the page says, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I think it is acceptable and wise to add a box just below it saying, Forums for general discussion about this article's subject are available elsewhere on the Internet - and leave it at that for now. C.m.jones 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the policy stating that, please? C.m.jones 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy for everything, but there is a shared understanding that what you are trying to do is not acceptable. You may want to consult with other administrators, by adding the {{

helpme}} tag in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks. That is really cool that template exists. :-) C.m.jones 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the comment I received:

I understand you want to head off a possible talkpage mediation headache, but until it manifests it probably isn't necessary. Still, there is no policy against such a pre-emptive action. If you really want to, then

Be Bold and do it. If you do, please don't link directly to a forum but do as you suggested and direct people to the interenet in general. Otherwise we have a slippery slope where people figure they can spam their favorite forum by using a similar technique. In short, I don't see a need for it until there is a need for it, but if you really want to then I don't see how it would harm anything. SWAdair 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this is fair, a sort of middle ground between our viewpoints. I will leave it out for now but if (when?) extraneous posters start posting, will feel free to put it in as per the above. Is this an acceptable agreement to you, too? C.m.jones 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and when that happens, you can suggest to people to have non-article related discussions off-wiki. That would be acceptable i done in an ad hoc fashion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to confirm second-week sales figures for Bianca Ryan, I've seen several posts at message boards; all give identical figures and claim to be the "Official SoundScan numbers". This creates two questions: one, is there such a thing as a "preponderance of evidence" source; two, would publication of this figure on Wikipedia prior to its public (free) release violate any copyrights? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is an issue of copyright. But may be an issue with

verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, this just popped up today; any thoughts about this site's reliability? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/index.jsp as the source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: one, only the top 100 of the Billboard 200 is available to non-subscribers; two, sales figures are not listed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why my editing policy worries you, considering I haven't changed the wording on any policy or guideline since December 1st (indeed, a "silent period"), with the exception of this warning about username blocks. Does that clause really worry you? (Radiant) 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, what worried me was your intervention on that dispute and making no distinction between long-standing editors and others that may be disruptive. We are having a very difficult time with some users that are endlessly introducing minutiae and wasting everybody's time in policy pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have misunderstood me. My suggestions have been to get the page protected (which should stop further disruption) and open an RFC on the people perceived to be disruptive. Also I note that the main dispute is about the "verifiability, not just truth" paragraph, and I wrote that I agreed with that paragraph. The intent of that all, indeed, is to put an end to the difficult time you mention. I fail to see how my opinion is then construed as endorsing disruption, for it is nothing of the sort. (Radiant) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, I’m interested in adding more poems to the Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi page on Wikisource and I saw your name in the history log of one of the poems on that page. I understand from your note in discussion that rumi.net allowed the poem to be published under the GNU. Did they indicate that they might be willing to also allow this with further translations of Rumi poems? Also would you be interested in working to update this page? Thanks! S.dedalus 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will love to help with that article. Check also Wikisource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Jalal_al-Din_Muhammad_Rumi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found a large collection of uncategorized GNU Rumi poem here [12]. They appear to have been added to the wrong wiki and I was thinking of transferring them to Wikisource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Jalal_al-Din_Muhammad_Rumi. It looks like a big task (many poems are missing titles our have problems with translation) and I’m specifically looking for people to help organize and research these poems. Interested? S.dedalus 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's divide the task. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i need your help on the

. An editor there is making war about me including the word concubine in. Plz read the talk page, karl is neatral, and wants more editors to be involved. Thanks. Plz reply on my talk.

FrummerThanThou 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commented in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE "This should be an easy dispute to resolve. Just find how Safiyya is described in reputable sources. If there are conflicting descriptions, i.e. concubine and slave girl, use both descrptions and attribute each to the corresponding source."

• Hi Jossi. That there is no mention in any sources of Safiyya as a concubine, is not the point of contention. We don't need a source in this case, in fact even if there where thousands of them in favor of Safiyya's alleged non-concubine status, it still wouldn;t be relevant. I asserted Safiyya was a concubine by the fact that she was captured, and given the
  concubine is, and according to the fact that she was captured, she was a concubine! Hope I've enlightened you on this point and reconsider your last comment. FrummerThanThou 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is what

WP:NOR warns us about. We need to keep simply describing what reliable sources say about Safiyya. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank You!

Thank you for your comment regarding Administrator Warnings versus User Comments on talk pages. Sm1969 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For excellent use of research skills and cool, reasoned thinking to defuse a debate about whether Safiyya bint Huyayy was the wife or the concubine of the prophet Muhammad. Karl Dickman talk 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi: I was supremely impressed with the way that you stepped into the talkpage and did a lot of research into the question. I tried to be a voice of reason and moderation, but was simply too lazy/distracted to put in the effort that you did. I don't know you that well, but that one example speaks very highly of your skills as a Wikipedian. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As an editor of the article on

]

Responded in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True that, but the issue at hand there is whether a phrase about revolutionary socialism is to be included in the article or not. Any comments on that? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the Landmark Education intro and what Wbroun has done to it? Can we consider that vandalism? Sm1969 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to call it vandalism, simply because it seems that he has put a significant amount of work into his citations. However, I agree that parts of his new additions are inappropriate - or at least definitely inappropriate for the introduction section. Smeelgova 07:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That was the funniest

WP:LEAD I have read in a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your message

Dear Sir, I noticed you left a threat at my talk page. Duly noted. As a reply, I would like to inform you that I have not edited any article on the en.wikipedia.org website in my entire life. Further, I will continue to leave my opinion on whatever Talk-page I feel like.

Cordially, An Anonymous User 88.113.137.249 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning message, was related to this posting from the same IP address, that was in violation of our

no personal attacks policy. If you want to avoid problems of mistaken identity, please register with a username. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not made a personal attack on any one person. Please target your bullying elsewhere. Cordially, An Anonymous User 88.113.137.249 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to what all your involvement in the mediation case is, and whether you feel it can go on with your absence. ^

]

Sure. That was my intention by removing my rejection and my status as a party. I tried to assist with the disputes there, but sides may need the type of help that I cannot provide. I may offer some comments here and there during the mediation, if I see that it may be helpful. Feel free to talk to me either via this page or email, if you need any assistance with the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I hadn't read deeply into it yet, so I didn't realize that you had been attempting mediation and weren't directly involved. Makes sense now. Thanks ^

[omg plz] 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems that editors there are finding some common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, your input into this topic is much appreciated, but please stay focused.

For now I have added in 'who was captured'. But I maintain she should be titled 'concubine'. Its not even a negative term by the way, it just makes it clear it wasn't a boy-meets-girl thing. You are quoting islamic sources as what she was. That is not good, after all

(captive)!!!

Furthermore, you said we need a source for her being referred to as a concubine as apposed to (in this case) deducing from existent sourced facts. QUESTION, in order to call Deorge Bush 'President George Bush' would we need to find a source seeing the words 'president' and George bush arm in arm somewhere on Google?

I will reiterate the argument in simple terms. She was captured after the massacre of her family, tribe, neighbouring tribes (and possibly her own children since all males where killed in accords to the tradition then up untill recently). Mohammad 'married' her, yes he liked her and she wasnt just a 'non veiled' partner, wow, big deal, we in this day and age dont give credence to that meaning she was a wife as apposed to a sex slave. We don't know the exact circumstances of every day from there on, but she remained with him and bore children to him. After she died all her property went to her Jewish family (sister who followed Judasim, dont know what the story is there) which means she reconnected with her kin.

It is beyond my understanding how this discussion drew out over a few lines, the only possible reason could be our fear of being anti Islam. I would like this to come to a consensus, clearly the majority of comments are for it.

Remember this is in good faith. Cheers

FrummerThanThou 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did just some research to help resolve the dispute. All the sources I found describe Safiyya s a wife and not as a concubine, that is what we are describing in the article. Of course, if you find sources that have a competing viewpoint, the article would be enhanced by adding that source. As for your comments about bearing Muhammad children, I have not found any sources that say that. Again, if there is such source, it would an excellent addition to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, that is not a satisfactory reply. Please answer me the two questions above. the George bush one and the Wolfgang Priklopil one. Thanks. FrummerThanThou 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrummerThanThou, I do not understand the analogy with Bush. George W. Bush is widely known as the current president of the US. There is no dispute about that, is there? We only know about Safyyia what historians and other scholars say about her, and we report that in the article. As for the analogu with kidnapper Wolfgang Priklopil, I do not see any possible analogy. Having responded to you to the best of my ability, I would appreciate it if you can continue this conversation at Talk:Safiyya_bint_Huyayy and not here. Thanks is advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i would like to talk here for the following reason. You have taken us off the subject. The talk page there is a valuable space for unaccustomed editors to catch up on the issues involved. If we can get back to talking about why she shouldn't be called a concubine according to normal thinking then we can continue on the talk page there. You say above "We only know about Safyyia what historians and other scholars say about her, and we report that in the article." My point is that it is present in the article about how she was captured, there fore the status 'concubine' should be 'attributed' to her. You ask for sources of her being referred to as a concubine, but that is not needed, you belittled my Bush analogy, even if Bush WASN'T widely known as a President, and even if we couldn't find him on google referred to as a President, we would be ABLE to attribute that title to him if it said in his article he was elected to presidency and the election was sourced! As for Wolfgang Priklopil, in his warped mind, his concubine was his wife, but WIKIPEDIA DOESN'T CARE! ...and we call him a kidnapper and Natasha was KIDNAPPED... which means Saffiya was a concubine, since according to any dictionary the first criteria is "A woman who lives with a man, but who is not a wife.", which is exactly what she was. You see, bearing in mind the aforementioned Wolfgang Priklopil analogy... and this is getting annoying for me to repeat, Mohammad's classification of marriage is not ours, if you throw your cloak over a 17 year girl after you've killed of everyone she knew, you're not "married" to her in most normal people's opinion! This is what is so annoying, you took up the whole talk page with all your refs of Islamic discussions on whether she was this kind of wife or not and other irrelevant stuff... and you got me all worked up, I've never been so taken back on by sidetracking a point, i thought you would next propose that Mohammad's battles where all holy wars because he thought so himself. Mohammad was a barbarian who took any girl who caught his fancy, even his daughter in law, but I'm not going to smear wikipedia with it just to offend Muslims. By the way your paintigs are amazing! i thought they where vectors first! FrummerThanThou 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. After all I am a Jew. But note that Wikipedia is not a place in which we debate our own views on anything, including historical facts about Muhammad. As editors, we simply describe in articles whatever information is available in reputable publications. That is all. As fascinating a subject Mumammad is, I do not want to engage in discussions in Wikipedia about the subject. If you want, you can email me to discuss the subject. As editors we avoid discussing the subject, and instead we discuss the article. A subtle, but very significant distinction, that many contributors miss, and as a consequence get "worked out". As for your mention of Google, this is my opinion: Google is a fantastic search engine, but that is all. A Google query is not a replacement for solid research. Maybe one day, when all books, periodicals, journals, and other printed material are on-line and searchable... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used admin warnings to shield bias in the

]

As said in your talk page, below the warnings about your violations of

WP:NPA, if you haveany complaints about my behavior as an administrator of Wikipedia, you can file a complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I struck out my earlier comments because I don't agree with them any longer. Wbroun 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot overstate how much I appreciate your willingness to work toward a compromise on that extremely dicey article. I regret some of my earlier comments directed at you (I have no excuse), and see the wisdom of some of your earlier moves. You have shown patience and I appreciate that, too. Wbroun 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And also congratulate yourself for having been able to come around full circle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, would you be willing to informally mediate some disputes on the Free Republic article?

We have differences of opinion on NPOV, RS, undue weight, and other issues as well.

Thanks in advance if you can. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me from editting when I didn't deserve it. I had been previously warned that if I reverted the article one more time I would be blocked, so I stopped. Then you blocked me without justification and without violating the three revert rule! Unfair and unjust! I demand apologies and compensation! Kiske 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the formulas you need to calculate it:

http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~symmetry/Symmetry2001/Bedrij589-601.pdf

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already know it, and you can actually calculate it extremely simply, without any of the formulas listed there. Have you calculated it? If you haven't, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the result. Karl Dickman ^talk 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am all ears... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle G={\frac {F_{G}}{m}}={\frac {mg}{m}}=g}$, where ${\displaystyle G}$ is the strength of the field, ${\displaystyle F_{G}}$ is the force caused by the field, ${\displaystyle m}$ is the mass of an object in the field, ${\displaystyle g}$ is the acceleration due to gravity. Now, lete me explain what this means.

Gravitational and electric fields

The gravitational flux density is the same quantity as the gravitational field strength, just like electric flux density is the same quantity as electric field strength. What do I mean by this? Allow me to explain using a common technique for visualising electric and magnetic fields (it can also be applied to gravitational fields) is the concept of "lines of force", which was developed by Michael Faraday.

In the case of electric fields, lines of force start at positive charges and terminate at negative charges. Consider the case of a single positively charged body: it should have lines of force radiating from it in all directions like the spokes of a wheel. The larger the charge of the body, the more lines of force it has. For a negative charge, the lines of force should enter it from all directions; the field looks the same as that generated by a positive charge, but the arrows point in the opposite direction. Now consider two charges of opposite sign but the same magnitude (illustrated here). Some of the lines of force generated by the positive charge radiate into space, while others curve around and end at the negative charge.

Now consider a small positively charged body with a charge ${\displaystyle q_{0}}$, such that ${\displaystyle q_{0}}$ is negligible relative to the charge ${\displaystyle \pm q}$ of either charge in the dipole (${\displaystyle q_{0}\ll |q|}$). In Physics, we call this a test charge. If the test charge is acted upon by no other force than that generated by the electric field, it will follow a line of force to come to rest on the negative charge.

A similar visualisation can be used for gravitational fields: lines of force start and end at a mass. But with gravitational fields, the concept of direction gets a little confusing, so I'll try not to go any further.

One final thing: if I define a region ${\displaystyle S}$ with an area ${\displaystyle A_{S}}$, then the number of field lines that flow through ${\displaystyle S}$ is equal to the electric or gravitational flux (flux=flow) through that region. The number of field lines per unit area is the flux density. Remember that we said that the density of the field lines is proportional to the strength of the field? Flux density is the same thing as field strength.

Vector fields

These days, we express electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields as vector fields. I'm sure your at least acquainted with vectors. They are mathematical constructs with magnitude and direction. One way of visualising vectors is to draw an arrow from the origin (at point ${\displaystyle (0,0,0)}$) to a point ${\displaystyle P(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})}$. That vector can be expressed in coordinate form as ${\displaystyle \langle x_{0},y_{0},z_{0}\rangle }$. In a vector field, each point is assigned a vector, and each component of the vector is a function of its coordinates. So a vector at any point ${\displaystyle (x,y,z)}$ will have coordinates ${\displaystyle \langle P(x,y,z),Q(x,y,z),R(x,y,z)\rangle }$ where ${\displaystyle P}$, ${\displaystyle Q}$, and ${\displaystyle R}$ are functions of the variables ${\displaystyle x}$, ${\displaystyle y}$, and ${\displaystyle z}$. I'm sorry if this is to mathy for your; but having some idea of what vector fields are is extremely useful in understanding some of the math. Go to the articles on electric field, vector field, and dipole; you can see some nice pictures of vector fields there.

Here's a great example of a vector field equation that defines the force due to gravity (${\displaystyle \mathbf {F_{G}} }$) under the influence of a single mass ${\displaystyle M}$: ${\displaystyle \mathbf {F_{G}} =\left\langle {\frac {-GMx}{(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})^{\frac {3}{2}}}},{\frac {-GMy}{(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})^{\frac {3}{2}}}},{\frac {-GMz}{(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})^{\frac {3}{2}}}}\right\rangle }$. Using the very useful substitution ${\displaystyle \mathbf {r} =\langle x,y,z\rangle }$, we can simplify this to ${\displaystyle \mathbf {F_{G}} =-{\frac {GM\mathbf {r} }{|\mathbf {r} |^{3}}}}$.

So, each kind of force field can be expressed as a vector function, magnetic fields are usually denoted by ${\displaystyle \mathbf {B} }$ (magnetic flux density/magnetic field strength) and electric fields by ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} }$ (electric flux density/electric field strength). I will use ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} }$ to denote gravitational field strength. I use bold to denote vector quantities here; that is the difference between ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} }$ (gravitational field) and ${\displaystyle G}$ (

): the former is a vector, the latter is just a number (or scalar).

One final properties to remember about vectors: their magnitude. Remember how we said that a vector can be represented by an arrow drawn from the origin to a point ${\displaystyle P(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})}$? The magnitude is equal to the length of that arrow, which, by the Pythagorean theorem, is ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {{x_{0}}^{2}+{y_{0}}^{2}+{z_{0}}^{2}}}}$. The magnitude of a vector is denoted by ${\displaystyle |\mathbf {a} |}$. Magnitude is a scalar quantity.

How fields act on charges and masses

At any given point in an electric field, the force that is caused by the field on a particle of charge ${\displaystyle q}$ is given by the equation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ={\frac {\mathbf {F_{E}} }{q}}}$. Likewise, a graviational field acts on a particle of mass ${\displaystyle m}$ with the relation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} ={\frac {\mathbf {F_{G}} }{m}}}$.

This last equation is the one that I introduced you to way up at the top of this rant. By Newton's second law, every force is equivalent to a mass times the acceleration caused by the force. Thus, we can say that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {F_{G}} =m\mathbf {a_{G}} }$, where ${\displaystyle m}$ is the mass of the object being acted upon by the field and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {a_{G}} }$ is the acceleration caused by the force of gravity. Plugging the expression ${\displaystyle m\mathbf {a_{G}} }$ into the equation for ${\displaystyle \mathbf {F_{G}} }$, we arrive with the relationship ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} ={\frac {m\mathbf {a_{G}} }{m}}=\mathbf {a_{G}} }$.

Remember that at the earth's surface acceleration is approximately g (9.80665 m/s²). By definition, the magnitude of the acceleration due to gravity must always be g (${\displaystyle g=|\mathbf {a_{G}} |}$). So we are left with the conclusion that the local gravitational flux density ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} }$ is the same thing as the local gravitational acceleration.

Conclusion

At this point, you're probably wondering why I said that the solution was so simple. Well, the solution really is very simple: I could have just told you that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} ={\frac {\mathbf {F_{G}} }{m}}={\frac {m\mathbf {g} }{m}}=\mathbf {g} }$. Partly, I felt that if I just tossed the equation at you you wouldn't appreciate the beauty of the result; partly, I just love lecturing on my favourite physics topics. I did my best to make it easy to understand, but you have to realise that I've packed about two weeks of math and three weeks of Physics into a few paragraphs.

Now it's time for me to tell a story. At the end of my AP Physics class my senior year of high school, we had spent a lot of time talking about electric and magnetic fields, field lines, fluxes, flux densities/field strength, electric and magnetic forces, etc. I had known for a while that gravitation can be portrayed with the same kind of fields that electric and magnetic forces can. So I sat down and thought about the implications of this. I decided to calculate the field strength at the earth's surface, and realised, with a shock that it was g. All that crazy stuff about vectors, lines of force, fluxes and flux densities boild down to simple acceleration. It was like some brilliant piece of poetry or an essay.

There are stories about how Einstein, upon learning Maxwell's equations, was so excited by them that he would lurk in coffehouses and corner passerby to lecture them on Maxwell's equations. If you can get to the point where you understand Maxwell's equations, they have a kind of indescribable beauty, like your favourite song or favourite sonnet.

Anyway, sorry about the rant. Hope you enjoyed it. Karl Dickman ^talk 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of what you ask for... I should tell myself :) But I really enjoyed it. You really have a knack for explaining things. Thanks a lot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are way too fast on the draw to revert. That is not Wikipedia friendly style, Jossi. You just reverted my edit on the Sant Mat page, asking for a secondary reliable source. That is not required by wikipedia, sources need to be reliable and verifiable, i.e., you can go and read it. Also, you definitely need to let people do their thing prior to reverting or even changing someone else's work in real time. That is called courtesy. Sevadar 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check my last edit, I added a disambig link at the top of the page. Hope it addresses your concern. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to confuse the names there!!!! Thanks for pointing it out. Sethie 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new template I just made, for new users you think may be Jewish. {{bruchim}}. Feel free to improve. In the meantime what dyou think of this idea, I would love to oversee a project where we would change the wikilogo for special days like

]

I am not so sure about the {{bruchim}}. I will make some changes that you may revert if you don't like them. As for the holidays logo, that seems line a good idea. You can bring the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tweaks. They're good. "You might be interested in my

awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks!"FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Rumi report

Okay, I got an account on Wikisource so I will begin moving poems from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rumi to the official Rumi page on Wikisource. Since I now have an account there I will contact you in the future through you user user on Wikisource. Do you know how Rumi poems that have no title are usually referred to? I was just going to use the Emily Dickinson method and list them by their first line. S.dedalus 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have spent some time on the talk page of this article. Would you care to comment at

]

Thanks for the heads up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi,

Is Avyakt/Riveros11 also going to be tagged with this (in regards to Brahma Kumaris Info:has made few or no other edits outside this topic.PEACETalkAbout 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, I happened to have a watch on Smeelgova's talk page and I like the arrangement you've come to. Do your intentions apply to everyone, or just Smeelgova? Thanks. Tanaats 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian Lukas19 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi

I just wanted to thank you for your valiant attempts to bring some order and quality to the Landmark article. I very much regret your decision to step back from editing that page, although I found it more than understandable. Many others would not have given it this much time and effort. It will be a severe loss to the page not to have the involvement of an experienced editor with a strong committment to the policies and principle of Wikipedia, and who does not have an axe to grind regarding the subject matter.

I am disappointed that you felt it necessary in your closing remarks to refer to "POV pushing from both pro and con sides". Am I included in that characterisation? And, if so, do you have any advice on how I can avoid being guilty of it? I make no secret of the fact that I have taken several of Landmark's courses and found them beneficial, but I am totally committed that the article should be informative, accurate and neutral; this is what have been attempting to achieve with my contributions to the article and the discussion page.

Also do you have any practical advice on how to proceed in the face of editors who seem determined to subvert Wikipedia by introducing torrents of agenda-promoting material, without getting drawn into futile edit wars?

Thanks again. DaveApter 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV editing is not easy, and collaborative editing is hard when strong POVs are at play. But it is not impossible. In my experience it takes persistence, a lot of patience and a commitment to the project. One thing that may help

dispute resolution

.

Please note that I have decided to disengage from editing the article itself, but I would be happy to assist editors there if they have a need for a third party opinion in the future, and my opinion could be of value. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice! What do you do when an admin tries to take ownership

WP:OWN of an article?? Wbroun 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be too inclined to slap a WP:OWN on anyone that cares about an article and that does not agree with your POV. FYI, admins cannot take ownership of an article more than anyone else, for that matter. Instead of complaining about others, why don't you use your time to edit articles? By taking a look at your contribs, it seems that the only thing you do is comment on the edits of others. After a while, that becomes a pain in the neck, I tell you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to second DApter's praise. It was great to see you come in with a level-head and centered approach and truly model NPOV behaviour. It is a loss to the article to have you not engaged. Alex Jackl 07:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also, enormously. I will miss your participation on the LE-related articles. Sm1969 07:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement:

"Note that there are no lack of god quality secondary sources. A list of sources I found (not comprehensive, I only spent one half an hour researching sources) yielded this list of books and encyclopedias".

I think you mean "good quality". It would be a good if there were "god quality" sources but good is good enough. 195.82.106.244 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, it is my reading of the speedy delete criteria that user talk pages cannot be speedied, because they contain substantial contributions from other editors. Could you weigh in on this? The pages in question are User talk:Hanuman Das and archives. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion that user pages (main and talk) should never be deleted. They can blanked and protected, but not deleted, in particular if the editor was prolific and decided to retire. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is looking like an edit war. I post the tag on a page and it says one thing by the time I post it on another page it says something else. I am sure that the template needs work and that all of you making changes have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, but it is unseemly to keep changing the template without coming to consensus on what it is going to say first. When you edit the template you are editing a post that I have made on and that still lives on multiple pages. If you want to change it, that’s fine, it’s the wiki way. Please bring it to the talk page and work out what and why it should say before you change it.

Posted to talk pages for

Please keep in mind it is my signature on a whole bunch of pages that that template is living on. The people that are seeing the template are seeing my post keep changing with no idea why.

Thank you Jeepday 15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing from mediation and will not participate further in the re-writing process. The mediation and discussion of the article have been hijacked by one editor, and I don't have the desire nor patience to deal with his conduct. please see Thanks for your attempts to help. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to give up... I am sure we can manage to move the article forward. We need to exercise patience in these cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is moving pages again, without RM. Would you like to take action, or do you think I should bring this up at ANI again? --Elonka 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Jossi, Elonka has requested an injunction about this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop#Request for injunction on page moves while the ArbCom case is in-process. The arbitrators so far have been silent on the matter. You can use your own judgment about how disruptive these moves are — but, for the record, Yaksha left a note asking for comment at Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes on December 7 [14], and the only responses were from editors involved in the TV-NC dispute. It looks to me as if the Buffy editors don't really care much about the naming issue. Do as you see fit, but I wanted you to know the context. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have participated in the NC discussion to indicate their opposition to moves, without specifically stating which show they're representing. I'd also point out that there's a guideline page at

WP:RM. --Elonka 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Since they didn't state which show they're representing, it is baseless to assume they were therefore representing Buffy. Whenever WP:RM was invoked for these matters it showed a strong consensus for what Yaksha is doing. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so there's no need to RM for every single episode individually. (Radiant) 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on this article (and for taking the NPOV flag off) — nice to see what an admin does.

I am new to Wikipedia and have some questions on how I should respond where your edits seem off the mark or in need of tweaking. My inclination is to boldly revert—revise—justify. However, you are an admin. Does that mean I should treat your edits differently than all the rest? Should I discuss/propose first before I revert (or revise) anything you've done? Frankly, I think if more efficient (and bold) to revert/revise first—of course with appropriate discussion. I assume it is bad form to revert an admin without discussion.

Also, I find this article presents special challenges both on achieving NPOV and on sourcing:

• It is very polarizing — I fear hardly any editors will strive for authentic NPOV (not that I have attained such).
• The film is less than a year old (and never released to theaters) — little time for reliable sources to study & publish on it.
• It's subject matter is very fringe — "magical thinking" aspects tag it as unworthy of serious time by those Wikipedia could source.

I like this challenge and aim to meet it, hopefully, without needing to break new ground. Looking for advice from you on this...

Thanks,

]

Hello WikiLen. I do not edit articles as an administrator. I edit articles as a fellow editor. My edits were all done in an attenpt to remove a lot of original research and make the article better compliant with out content policies of

No original research. If you find my edits not useful, you can ask for clarification in talk page, rather then revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yea, I have to admit the section you flagged as such is original research. I tried to craft it so the film itself would serve as the source, but I guess it didn't work. I should move it to the discussion page and ask for help on sourcing it (& improving it), but I am having a hard time stomaching such. I hate moving towards saying nothing. What good is that? I have found this review today and it has some meat to it. Maybe, with some revisions to my text, I can work it in as the source.

WikiLen 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that is a bit early to start describing reviews. Wait a little and I am sure we will have reviews in the mainstream media that we can describe in the article. As with many articles about films, there is a tendency to engage in OR, so I would suggest to err on the side of caution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not thinking of describing the review, just referencing it and/or quoting it.

WikiLen 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

And, OK—will put my (proposed) edits in the talk page—about a half-dozen to discuss. FYI: In some cases, I think you hit on a NPOV issue but went the wrong way fixing it. I will be interested to learn your opinions.

WikiLen 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I did some edits on the article. These were all to fix typos and other minor errors. Thanks for your kind comment at the talk page regarding "documentary" —

]

I did a modest re-write of the "Teachers of the Law of Attraction" section. to eliminate ambiguity and obfuscation. This may seem to revert some of your edits for NPOV. From your edits, I realized you had not viewed the film—a good thing—and mis-read the intent of some of the sentences. It is by your eye I discovered important detail(s) left out—hence my revisions. I think you will agree I carried out your NPOV intent. I apologize, if this violated your request to discuss first, but this seemed like the obvious solution as my edits addressed errors on the film's content.

]

The edit was good, WikiLen. I just edited it to read "as purported teachers", rather than asserting that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who to inform, so I selected you because you speedy-deleted the previous incarnation of this article on December 18. (Here.) It has returned, though this time it was not created by the person who identified herself as the founder of the organization. Some of the facts seem to be slightly different but it is the same organization and points to the same web site. I do not particularly care whether this organization has an article or not, but I do like to see proper procedures followed, so assuming that the article was correctly deleted, it seems to have been improperly re-created. 6SJ7 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was recreated by someone who is not in the organization. I know that because they told me they created a new version of the article. Then I went to look at it and saw that Slim Virgin and Jpgordon deleted it again. The first time it was deleted because I created it and I am in the organization, but now they are just deleting it because they can't stand that I tried to get POV statements about "most jews supporting zionism" deleted from the zionism page. They are taking their personal issues about me out on the article by deleting it without good cause. An organization that contains political candidates such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and many others is notable and relevant and should be posted. This was determined by others before these guys came in and started investigating me and everything I had posted. The only reason the article was deleted at Political Cooperative was because I was not supposed to post it. So it should not be deleted when someone who is not involved in the organization posts the article. 71.135.36.250 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed the AfD, and therefore to be re-created again so soon and without its circumstances having changed, it must be taken through deletion review. It has very little chance of success because there are no reliable third party sources to show that it's notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in question is already tagged with {{

]

Sure. NP, Mel. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi :-) Thanks for your congrats and your support. I'm going to do some editing to relax a bit before I jump into Arbcom. Looks to be busy with a heavy case load, for sure. --FloNight 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heelo, I saw on page Pratap Singh Rajawat that you had put an AFD notice on page Chaturbhujot on 12 Dec 2006. As on date, there is no such notice on the page and page has been re-created on 23 Dec 2006 (JimmyNet 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

An image you uploaded,

. -- 05:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Amway/Quixtar etc

Hello, thanks for the welcome and the work so far on the Amway article. I'm curious however why a link to a blatantly POV anti-amway self-published website is being allowed to remain as a source for the UN information? Forgive the feeling of persecution :-) but every link that can even be remotely linked to POV sites in support of A/Q get challenged and removed very rapidly, with the support of admins. I pointed out this POV link and provided an "official" link in talk several days ago, before your most recent editing, but the link remains. What is the justification for this? Link is to amquix.info. --

]

Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article

Hi Jossi,

Happy New Year!!

As you know an RfC was recently filed on Anti-Semitism related articles which I believe shows the very existence of some dispute in that article if not that which party is right. Some editors are disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [15] and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. Thanks. --Aminz 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I haven't even posted anything in the last few days. Why are you deciding at this time to single me out? 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So am I to take it that, after a week of opportunity to clarify your position, the fact that you have been unable or unwilling to do so means that your original ultimatum was made in error? Very well, concession accepted. Have a good new year. =) Mael-Num 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, Happy common calendar year, and thanks for the help with the captions issue on the Woman article. Cheers. Dogru144 16:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just filed a formal complaint against

.

Requests_for_investigation

I notice that you have encountered their special brand of tag-team intimidation in the past, and I encourage you to comment on your experiences at the page I have linked above, during the investigation. Thank you for your input. ArlingtonTX 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]