User talk:Jojalozzo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Uncontroversial moves

In regards to your multiple move requests of 5 September: You should consider executing these without discussion per WP:BEBOLD. They're not controversial. Any that require an admin to move can be posted at WP:RM: Uncontroversial requests, I have also posted a note there as well. —  AjaxSmack  20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing Talk:Halley's Comet

There is ample precedent (it’s done all the time) about closing an RfC after the nominator withdraws his or her motion. There was nothing “presumptuous” (your ∆ edit here) about putting a close tag on it. Or is there some other tag that closes it and doesn’t “archive” it? I just copied that tag from ANI. Greg L (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Reading the previous post here on this page, where someone commented about your “multiple move requests” in one single day, I suggest you take a time out with re-openning an archived move discussion after the nominating editor withdrew his motion. Your doing so betrays an affinity towards wikidrama and was borderline disruptive. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed the fact that the nominator had withdrawn the proposal. My apologies. Definitely not interested in drama - just trying to clean up. Note that the editor is encouraging me to make the page moves. Jojalozzo 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Now it’s my turn to apologize. I assumed you knew the nom withdrew. Very well. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for. I think the archive was a good idea to prevent further time waste there. I will replace the tag (and add the bottom tag so it doesn't close off any sections added after). Jojalozzo 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Whiplash! Jojalozzo 23:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth’s gonna go down swinging. ;-) He can have the last word. Thanks for closing it; that discussion’s life needed to find peace and tranquility in its closing hours. Greg L (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Downcasing job-names

Hi, I saw your name at the WP:MOVE page in relation to requests to downcase "King" and the like, as generics. I'm interested in your feedback about my arguments here, preferably not on the page itself, since I'm not canvassing for !votes. It's a vexed issue more generally. Tony (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the guidelines on job titles are clear: capitalize a job title, military rank, government title, etc. only if the title is followed by a person's name: "Toilet Cleaner Joja Lozzo is a fixture in Paddington Station. She has held the post of toilet cleaner for thirty years." Jojalozzo 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'll get this news out to toilet cleaners the world over. Tony (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cloud engineering

I have created an AfD for cloud engineering per your suggestion on the talk page. -- samj inout 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Chief Mechanical Engineer

Hi Jojalozzo. That is, I regret, an valid interpretation of my edit summary but despite the words used it was not intended to apply to you. I'm sorry for being so inaccurate in my edit summary.

However, to return to your comments on my talkpage I do believe that WP:Point making is occurring in respect of the article and comments boarding on incivility are present on the article's talkpage, but I'm happy to confirm not by you. The article has its faults and I can see them as well as anyone else; and quite frankly parts of the article's talkpage is a masterclass in pointmaking.

However, I don't agree with your comment about "unambiguous policy". What the guide lines state is:

"Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name, in other words when they have become part of the name: "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "Mitterrand was the French president" or "There were many presidents at the meeting."

The correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun, so it is correct to write "Louis XVI was the French king" or "Louis XVI was King of France". Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In the case of a compound word such as "prime minister" or "chief executive officer", either all parts begin with a capital letter or none (except at the beginning of a sentence).

Capitalize styles of nobility: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness"."

Of relevance is: "In the case of a compound word such as "prime minister" or "chief executive officer", either all parts begin with a capital letter or none (except at the beginning of a sentence).", so when used as a compound word, Chief Mechanical Engineer and chief mechanical engineer are both permissible, unless they occur at the beginning of a sentence. Pyrotec (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am relieved to hear we are still friends. I agree completely about the talk page discussion and the OWN and POINT there. It is hard to work things out reasonably when some are not being reasonable.
I don't like your "compound word" approach to this issue. I'd much rather see you take the "formal name of an office" approach. I think the compound word bit (though poorly written since there are these two interpretations) is only saying that when a title is compound you must apply the forgoing rules of capitalization the same to all the words - it doesn't say there are special rules for compound titles and that they can be whatever you want as long as they are applied the same to all the words.
However, I think you could make a case for Chief Mechanical Engineer and Locomotive Superintendent being the "formal names of an office" and I think this notion is partly what fuels the resistance to applying the job title policy. I would argue that such offices must include the actual railway name, the same way king by itself is just a title but King of France is the name of an office. I started an RfC on the talk page. See you there. :-) Jojalozzo 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jojalozzo, Thanks for your good advice. I like the "formal name of office" idea. I've down cased most of the CME/LS/RIO/REIs within the article, hopefully things will quieten down now. I'm not going to be active on wikipedia for most of the rest of September. When I return in October I want to added potted biographies of some of the good/bad/mad LSs and CMEs; what a CME does and some of his "boys toys". That will be the time for the "formal name of office" approach as I will have specific named individuals, named railway companies and specified time-frame. I think that there well be another battle over down casing the article, perhaps it will happen in September, in which case I will miss it. Its rather funny in that I had no real interest in the article until the renaming debarcle started, I mostly do WP:GAN reviews. Now I'm inclined to bring it up to GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. I've got your back. Jojalozzo 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Envelopenomia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO   A&E⇑ 04:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies – this page presumably belongs somewhere in project space, but I have no idea to where to move it. GILO   A&E⇑ 04:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I was using the sock incident form and it created this page instead. Go ahead and delete it. I'm baffled. Jojalozzo 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:VeronicaBrownAtl/AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:VeronicaBrownAtl/AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re paraphrasing

Hi, regarding a comment you left on an IP's talk page: it's a common error to believe that paraphrasing copyrighted material is enough to solve a copyvio problem. It isn't. As long as the final wording is derived from the original wording, it is a copyright violation -- obscuring the relationship doesn't fix that. The correct advice is to put the information in the editor's own words. Kind of a pedantic point I know, but I think we need to be clear on this. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Jojalozzo 00:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:117.211.86.74

Hi. A comment I added under the heading "India Office" to User talk:117.211.86.74 has been grouped by you with past warnings for this IP. However, my comment was an acknowledgement of a useful correction to an article, and not a warning of inappropriate behaviour! Could you please restore my comment to the main body of the talk page. Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for having tweaked this now. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing caps from job titles

Hi Jojalozzo, I've undone some of your edits to remove caps everywhere from job titles. Per WP:Job titles, "correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun". Writing "The commissioner of police of the metropolis", "the minister for home affairs", "the governor-general" etc looks wrong, and Google results for these terms are virtually always in caps. XLerate (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not always sure which is the "formal name of an office" (proper noun) and which is a job title (common noun). My apologies if I made a mistake but the article text didn't seem to be talking about the names of an office. If an article is talking about a job then it's a job title - there aren't a lot of articles about offices. Google results don't mean much to me since Wikipedia style is clearly not the same as the police/military style. On Wikipedia rank is always lower case. Jojalozzo 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for example, is clearly the formal name of the office. Contrary to what you say, there are plenty of articles about offices. May I suggest you take a step back and actually check what you're moving before you do it. May I also suggest that you don't change text as you did in Police ranks of the United Kingdom to what you think looks right without checking first - it wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm leaving this message for you, OberRanks, and Shem1805 to advise you to cease and desist the page move vandlaism - by which I mean the unauthorized moving of the page General of the Armies without filing for a move request. The point of move requests is to avoid this exact situation - a wheel war of page moving spawned by one editor's refusal to formal request a page move to allow others to contribute to a consensus to that move. While I appreciate the fact that your all trying to be technically correct its creating problems for the rest of us, therefore I've move protected the page until such time as a move request gets filed so we can determine conclusively which camp will walk away with the consensus of the editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake for not noticing the page title was disputed. No intention of violating process. Sorry. Jojalozzo 22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I replied to post made by Shem1805 (talk · contribs) under the same article header, the info there explains where exactly you messed up, and offers an explanation for the message I left here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that I should have checked the page for previous move issues. I knew that but forgot to check. Am now forewarned. Thanks. Jojalozzo 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Move General of the armies

Jojalozzo, I'm curious why you'd move General of the Armies to General of the armies when the subject of the capitalisation is currently the subject of considerable debate at Talk:General of the armies. Shem (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm also curious how you managed to do it. Perhaps you could comment at Talk:General of the armies on why, and at my talkpage on how! Shem (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I just did it, regular move page op per WP:MilTerms, common name, job title. Had no idea it was disputed - appears to be an official name of an office. I see someone's put it back already. Jojalozzo 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think it was possible to move an article to a page name that was already used. I have no idea how it was possible for you to do that. Shem (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the same thing. It won't let me make a move "over redirect" but someone else with similar privileges comes along and it works for them. This is the first time it's happened to me (and I didn't know it was happening). Baffling. Jojalozzo 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed instructions here: Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move Jojalozzo 16:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foxconn

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you expressed interest in this

Talk:Extreme_Programming. Tony (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the link to WP:DOCTCAPS. Editor2020 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. Use it wisely. :-) Jojalozzo 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodak

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kodak. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: AK model

Hello Jojalozzo. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy you proposed for this article. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio of AK model

All the editions by me in this topic were not copied from any documents directly. Please before putting the article in copyvio, make sure you read the article well enough. Thank you.

Sarangvk (talk

AK model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangvk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quotation mark

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.

Participation: We have had 46 people sign up for this drive so far, and 28 have copy edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't joined, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: We are making great progress in our goal of clearing out the oldest articles (April, May, and June 2010) from the queue. There are 122 articles left in those categories, which compares very favorably with the 281 that were present at the close of the September drive. We have reduced the 2010 backlog by 184 articles so far.

Coordinator elections: The term of our second tranche of coordinators will be running out at the end of the year, and we will be accepting nominations for new coordinators early in December. The election will likely run in the last two weeks of December. Please consider helping out by nominating yourself or someone else in the Guild as one of our coordinators. The commitment is for a six-month term. Thanks.

Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is denying facts from being posted possibly due to political bias.

Why do you keep on deleting my adding of Victor Vancier under "Jewish terrorism"??

He was sent to jail for terrorism for crying out loud!

Let me guess: you're a fellow JTF Kahanist member who is focused on hiding these facts from the public?

If you delete it again and falsely call it "vandalism", I will take it to be reviewed and make a complaint against you for political activism on Wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAcanthophis (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Also please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ("~~~~") which will be automatically replaced by your signature and a timestamp, like this: Jojalozzo 05:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Controversy

Hello, I would like to know why you keep adding controversy back to the National Agents Alliance wiki page. I have done extensive research on this subject and I have not found one instance of the FTC even looking into National Agents Alliance's practices and standards. I would like to remove this part again because there is zero evidence or citation to back the two claims regarding National Agents Alliance. I've looked all over their sites and all over the Internet and can't find anything to support those two statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErnieHemingway (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One reason is that the person who created the article was initially responsible for that content and I am giving them time to provide the references. Another reason is that the creator appears to be pro NAA so I considered that content to be an attempt to offset the promotional tone of the rest of the article as it initially rolled out. A third reason is that those who have removed the content have left no edit summaries so the edits appear to be coming from pro-NAA bias rather than application of policy.
Like you I have also been unable to find any FTC claims against the company but the originating editor may have some knowledge that's not accessible through free channels on the web. There's plenty of complaints about the company on the web but none of it rises to a reliable level. If nothing shows up in the next couple of weeks, we can remove that material.
While we're discussing this, please tell me if you have any personal or business interest in NAA, it's principals or employees. Thanks, Jojalozzo 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I am copying this to the talk page of the article. Please reply there. Jojalozzo 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Potato or Potato

What qualifies you to be the judge of what is vandalism or what is constructive criticism? An article if presented with a biased view does not have a counter arguement, than it is not balanced.

Differing viewpoints have a place in some articles, especially one where the views expressed are from only one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.116.70 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have wrongly identified your contributions as vandalism. Instead I could have pointed out your edits' lack of citations and neutrality. I'll fix it... Jojalozzo 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Please comment on Talk:Amigo Energy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amigo Energy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jojalozzo, can you take a look at my edits to Amigo Energy? I made some changes that I think will satisfy the dispute, and would love to know your thoughts. Also, any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Thanks! Commo soldier (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 backlog elimination drive report
GOCE November 2011 Backlog elimination drive progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report.

Participation

There were 48 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 35 participated. Thank you to everyone who helped reduce the size of the backlog!

Progress report

During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 232 articles, or by about 6%. This is a two percent increase from our September drive, when we copy edited 4% of the backlog. We were successful in our primary goal of clearing the oldest three months—March, April, and May 2010—from the queue. Thanks to all who helped copy edit these difficult articles. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 5086 articles, or by about 61%. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here.

Coordinator election

The term of our second tranche of coordinators has run out, and we will be accepting nominations from December 5, 00:01 UTC to December 15, 23:59 UTC. If you or any other member of the Guild of Copy Editors wishes to be a coordinator, add your name to this page along with a statement describing why you believe you should be a coordinator for the Guild. You must be able to commit to a six month term. Thanks!

Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in January, and we hope to see you there!

Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Zwarte Piet / Blackface

Why did you undo the section on "The Netherlands still holds its annual Christmas alike parade of Sinterklaas featuring Zwarte Piet in full blackface outfit." the picture provided is the source for this, it depicts a Zwarte Piet dressed as a blackface in 2010? Can we please restore this important line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.130.106 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Please send me a link to the last version that had that text. Jojalozzo 02:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I found it and put it back with a little editing. Jojalozzo 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

GOCE newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Caps: perhaps I've got it all wrong

Hi Joja, we went through the telecom resistance to downcasing in items such as named protocols. Well, OK, although I'm not entirely happy with that. We hav established that laws, theories, theorems, principles, rules, should be downcased. Am I wrong to assume that named indexes should be downcased? Many are already downcased on WP and in the open literature. I'd appreciate your advice on the arguments for and against in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report

We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.

Highlights
  • Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261
  • Report on coordinators' elections
  • Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives
  • Guild Plans for 2012
  • Requests page report
  • Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive!


Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012!
– Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Marketing mix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Science of morality page capitalization issues?

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe help me out and explain in that page's discussion? Thanks in advance -Tesseract2(talk) 07:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Silent River Film Festival

Long unsourced lists are not encyclopedic, even if sourced. We are not the film festival's promotional website. Yworo (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See 2011 Sundance Film Festival. Please discuss on SRFF article page. Jojalozzo 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Silent River Film Festival

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Silent River Film Festival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Yworo (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Silent River Film Festival. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You compared these additions to 2011 Sundance Film Festival. All the lists in that article have sources. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're so quick on the trigger with this article that I wasn't able to add sources (they exist!) before you deleted the content. Since you appear to be unwilling to locate or supply sources yourself, I suggest you back off for a bit while others work on this. I find it especially unseemly when proponents of speedy deletion remove content during discussion. Last, I suggest you use the article talk page for these discussions. Jojalozzo 15:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't remove any content until the speedy had been declined. Watch your accusations and don't make them until you have made sure they are true, I searched for sources on Google News, there was only one, and it was already used in the article. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I didn't see that bit of timing. Though I still question deletion of content while proposing deletion of the article unless you felt it might give the article a better chance to survive the proposal. In any case, I agree that the list of all entries was not so useful and is better replaced with the list of awardees, so it's all moot now. Jojalozzo 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian rupee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian rupee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Many minor edits in Solar inverter

{{Talkback|Surajt88#Many minor edits in Solar inverter}} Hello why are you deleting usefull information with the wrong view of marketing ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jojalozzo. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Caps or no caps

I think overall capitalization makes but a trivial difference to encyclopedic content, but items such as Last Supper are generally caps. I think you should ask on talk pages before running a rename lawnmower all over the place. You seem to be renaming many many pages at will. This is overdosing on lower cases now. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think capitalization confers meaning and when it's applied inconsistently then meaning is confused. Last supper is down=cased per WP:DOCTCAPS (by my interpretation). I hear you on the lawnmower analogy. Sometimes it's hard to hold back. Jojalozzo 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so please discuss it at the Last Supper page to figure it out. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Christianity#Application of MOS guidelines on capitalization in articles on Christianity. Jojalozzo 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, you don't seem to have consensus there, & I will apply to have your premature renames reversed; they should have been discussed at each page first. You are misinterpreting the policy, which indeed could be clearer. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
An RfC should stay active for a few days before consensus can be determined. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Jojalozzo 02:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It can stay "open" as long as you like, but you should not be making changes based on the reverse of the way it is clearly going in the meantime. Jesus at Herod's court is ok I think, but the others may not be. The Last Supper is very clearly a proper noun phrase, just like Gunpowder Plot. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Unblock request on User:125.7.71.6". Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confucius Institute

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confucius Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom

A request has been filed for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. I have added your name as a party, since it is clear that you have been involved at RMs, and at pages that are within the scope of the action.

Hoping for your comments, Joja. Best wishes!

NoeticaTea? 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no arbcom veteran, but would your "Policy and MOS harmed by Bold" proposal be more appropriate on the workshop page? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm definitely inexperienced with arbcom and had the same question. I'm hoping the clerks will sort it out or explain what I should do. I did offer some very general "evidence". :-) Jojalozzo 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. If you already saw it, please re-read it; it had bad typos that made it not make any sense. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Renewable energy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Renewable energy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Violation of copyrights

Hello , You have violated the copyrights by editing the image without the permission from the owner, please revert back the images to original form. or face legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrikanthv, you seem to have forgotten that the license granted for that image explicitly included the right to modify it, which is what Jojalozzo has done, removing branding to make the image more useful to the public. You have been blocked for making a legal threat here, and will not be unblocked until that threat is explicitly withdrawn. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrikanthv has withdrawn this legal threat. --Chris (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately, s/he blundered into more policy violations by socking after the block. It's been a tragedy of errors (promotional content, legal threat, socking). I suggested some time and effort spent learning policies. Jojalozzo 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hindhead Tunnel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Specialist style fallacy's talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Upanishads Review needed

Hello Mr Jojallozzo, I request you to make a short review in the talk page in the upanishads , I am cleaning it bit by bit as it is not easy if someone is biting every bit of it , please look at my last comments and allow me to make changes in article ( if you find my analysis is right) Shrikanthv (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr Jolallozzo, I still believe you have a neutral point of view, and i accept your judgment , please have a look at the recent edits of Ian , you can see his motives . he has completely deleted the whole language sections from the criticism section. and also deleted the whole quality of the source section and making it irreversible. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete the language section, I merged it with the appropriate portions of the rest of the article because its only purpose in the criticism section was to dilute the rest of that section. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with an RFC/U?

I'm drafting an RFC/U on Shrikantv at User:Ian.thomson/Shrikantv. As you're the only editor who has directly interacted with him on this issue, I'd appreciate your help. I believe that a lot of his behavior stems from so few editors commenting on his actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Inkjet solar cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ushuaia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ushuaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to MACI

May I ask why you were reverting the IP's edits on MACI ? The content they were removing doesn't seem to be particularly important to the article. RA0808 talkcontribs 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because the user is removing the content because I removed copyright violations they attempted to add earlier under IP accounts. I have attempted to engage them on the talk page but they have not responded nor appear to be willing to add content with support of reliable sources. I agree the content I restored is trivial and will let it stand deleted. I hope you will help out with the article now. Jojalozzo 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Please comment on Talk:Seattle FilmWorks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seattle FilmWorks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Diet, Genetic, Stress and Lifestyle
Optical chopper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Apparent motion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

swara yoga

Hi, can you help me merge this two article swara yoga to Shiva Swarodaya / Swara Yoga , as i am unable to do this. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much content in Swara yoga that isn't already in Shiva Swarodaya / Swara Yoga, except the quote. If you think the quote is important I think we just need to copy it into Shiva Swarodaya / Swara Yoga and then turn Swara yoga into a redirect to Shiva Swarodaya / Swara Yoga. How does that sound to you? Jojalozzo 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Anti-psych books

Hi, I’ve been trying to add some useful "See also" links to several anti-psychiatry books (such as Madness and Civilization, Mad in America, Liberation by Oppression, and We've Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy – And the World's Getting Worse) but have been thwarted by User:Polisher of Cobwebs. I’ve tried to discuss the matter on his Talk page to no avail. He also seems to be doing some rather harsh editing of these articles. Would be grateful if you could look the situation over please... thanks Johnfos (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I see there was some discussion with you on his talk page and many of his edits appear to be helpful. As I see it, we have a strong-willed colleague, at worst an uncooperative ally, certainly not an opponent. In such situations I tend to roll with it.
If we create a List of anti-psychiatry books page then we can "see also" that instead of individual books. See List of books#Subject lists for examples of book list pages. If there aren't enough books to merit a separate page, we could add the books to Anti-psychiatry#Further reading with a redirect from List of anti-psychiatry books, (similar to Risk#Further reading and List of books about risk). Jojalozzo 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not against a List, but there are only nine books in Category:Anti-psychiatry books, and I would have thought adding specific book suggestions to articles might have been more helpful to readers. Johnfos (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that if a book or other source is relevant then it can usually be used as a reference and not be included in see-also or external-links. It also can be legitimately added to a bibliography section or "Further reading". For a source that is only tangentially relevant, I think adding it to a List and adding the List to "See also" makes the more sense than adding it to "See also". Does it make sense to add the books in Category:Anti-psychiatry books to Anti-psychiatry#Further reading, create a redirect (List of anti-psychiatry books) to it, and add a link to the List to "See also" where we think it appropriate? Jojalozzo 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I really would be happy for you to proceed as you see fit, but I would not like to lose any of the individual links already put in place in the various book articles. It took me some time to select these individual links and I feel they are very relevant and need to stay in place, either as "See also" or "Further reading" links. Johnfos (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Have started Template:Anti-psychiatry, and think this helps. Please contribute if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tokyo Two

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pathogen

OK, I did the moves. You will need to cleanup the redirects including the links in the templates. I have no idea what should be pointing where! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge list of animal sounds and animal names

Jojalozzo, I notice you are a frequent editor of the above articles. Should List of animal sounds merge into List of animal names? The discussion is here D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed, the result was no merge. I've started discussion on what to do with the sounds list here, if you want to weigh in. The sounds list is really unloved! ~ Kimelea (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
  2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
  3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
  4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bose Corporation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bose Corporation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Hybrid cloud

Hi, I noticed that you proposed the article Hybrid cloud for deletion. The problem with this is that proposed deletion cannot be used on articles that have already been nominated for deletion. If you still wish to delete the page, then it will need to have another nomination at Articles for Deletion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Radical Right

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radical Right. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey...

I have a favor to ask...

Please keep a look out for medium-sized or larger articles with normal article titles, but that are in fact structured topic lists (outlines). And large articles with a inappropriately large proportion of structured list content.

I've run into several articles that have fit these descriptions, and have cleaned up the mess by porting the material to the outline department. There they get refined into stand-alone outline articles and added to the master list of outlines, or integrated into existing outlines. And of course I add a link to the outline in the appropriate See also sections so that readers to not lose access to the material.

Renaming or splitting such articles frees up article space for article-worthy prose contributions. Editors tend to build upon what is already there, making lists larger, even when they are on article pages.

If you run across any, please let me know.

Thank you, The Transhumanist 03:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I think the outline project is great. Jojalozzo 03:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Radical right

You might want to read the Wikipedia article Radical Right and amend your summary in the move description, because it does not accurately reflect the article content. The article is about a topic not a term. TFD (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It took a minute but I figured out what you were talking about. Jojalozzo 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Jojalozzo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:AT

You wrote: "Ambiguity on this page concerns the ability to distinguish article topics from one another.".

I know you reverted based on what you believed was improper process, but do you realize that the changes you reverted simply clarified that "Ambiguity on this page concerns the ability to distinguish article topics from one another"? I mean, it's a change in wording for clarity, not in intended meaning.

I presume you agree that not every change to policy requires discussion first - that, for example, an obvious typo fix does not require discussion. If so, then we only disagree on whether wording that doesn't change intended meaning is more like a typo that doesn't require discussion first, or more like a substantive change to policy that changes meaning and we all agree requires discussion first. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Acting Edit for External link

Hi Joja. I thought relevance to the subject counted when updating an article, particularly with external links. The link added was for http://www.actorsandcrew.com, which has a very high relevance to the subject:

http://wefollow.com/twitter/Acting - where it's listed as the #1 most relevant thing in the world to the subject.

or

http://klout.com/#/topic/acting

Where it's measured as the number one most relevant thing to the subject across *all* social networks.

So, not sure how adding that link in is categorized as 'spam'. What gives? TIA for the explanation.

Dave123williams (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Motivations Survey

Hi Jojalozzo,

Thank you for your feedback on my post in the Village Pump about my senior thesis. I am more than happy to provide Wikipedians with a link to my paper when it is completed and already intended to do so. Now, my posting reflects that. I also checked my survey to ensure that all of the buttons were working correctly; there is only question that should allow you to select more than one answer.

Thank you again! If you have any suggestions for recruiting additional participants, I'd be very grateful.

Anabeyta (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)anabeyta

Recent edits at variable frequency drives

The deletions have been rolled back by some other users allready, I am a good faith editor , the mere sense was to notify that innovation are done by private companies now compared 50 years before , so if you need new technology for the public or wiki. we need the information from manuals of companies!!! there is no escape.. , you had deleted my references of ABB and zvei, and kimo manuals for many of my articles, which are still standing wrongly refered to content of books where they do not even exist!!! , so its no one else, you have to decide on one thing weather to include product manuals or not . scary part also variable frequency drive has product catalogues too!! form ABB which i myself do not recommend but sure matches the reference information . so let me know your final take or direct me to some rule or standard page i can read the rules about. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical information from manufacturers (primary sources) should be okay as long as it doesn't come with promotional content also since advertising compromises the reliability of the source. I suggest you ask very politely and simply on the talk page about what is and is not considered reliable for that page. Jojalozzo 01:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Two or three sentences about thier own company is totally unavoidable , as you have to know that it is again a company information , so you may find sentences like ,the solution for this problem is our product, in all manuals. will you term this as advertisement ? , you either have to weigh out the value of the information for two or three sentences like that , which i beleive people who are fairly educated to read the article are themselves aware of these things. right ? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Acting Edit for External link

Hi Joja. I thought relevance to the subject counted when updating an article, particularly with external links. The link added was for http://www.actorsandcrew.com, which has a very high relevance to the subject:

http://wefollow.com/twitter/Acting - where it's listed as the #1 most relevant thing in the world to the subject.

or

http://klout.com/#/topic/acting

Where it's measured as the number one most relevant thing to the subject across *all* social networks.

So, not sure how adding that link in is categorized as 'spam'. What gives? TIA for the explanation.

Dave123williams (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the site is relevant. It's about actors and crew members and has little if any encyclopedic content on acting. It has some blogs about acting but blogs are not considered reliable sources. The addition of links to the site might drive users to the site but will do little to improve Wikipedia articles on acting. Probably the only place where such a link would be useful would be on the page about the site. Jojalozzo 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojalozzo/Archive_2&oldid=1148820956"