User talk:Jossi/Archive 17
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Categories and "see also" sections
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#"See also" section --Timeshifter (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Which article exactly is the editor being blocked for the 3RR-vio?
As near as I can tell from the contrib history [1]:
- Yesterday was the 1st time the editor has touched something in more than a week, and
- There are no triple edits.
Was the article in question deleted or moved?
I'm cross posting this at the editor's request to be unblocked. A prompt answer would be appreciated.
Thanks,
- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Check the contribs list: Edit warring is not just 3RR vios. Let him have a break of a few days so that he can reconsider the way he is participating in the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Podcast on controversial articles
I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are working on. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hoax on Spanish Wikipedia
Hi Jossi,
Would you mind letting the Spanish Wikipedia know that we English Wikipedians suspect Paraceratherium giganteum/es:Paraceratherium Giganteum of being an elaborate hoax?
Hesperian 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed guideline
I have started Wikipedia:Advocacy. Your input is welcomed. Jehochman Talk 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"Redux"
I'm having trouble understanding your edit summaries.[2] Are you using the word "redux" to mean "brought back; returned",[3] or as a variation of "reduce"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- redux = reduction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll create a "Jossi-dictionary". ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
simple words
Hi! I trust you like simple words (after all, you do like Twain) -- and I am getting tired in Joe the Plumber with the games being played there about stuff which is not really important, but niggling enough to be a pain. Such as trying to put adjectives in the infobox trying to say he is not a plumber when the whole bit is joyfully irrelevant, etc. And insisting that "sobriquet" is a better word than "nickname" and other silliness. Or is this what WP will ever be? On Twain, I did visit his grave in Elmira, but I am way to lazy to upload the pictures. I have now been to his house in Hartford, to Virginia City etc., his cabin in California, Hawaii, Bermuda, England and New Zealand. A few places left to visit someday. Collect (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hitchens POV?
Hey. I suspect I disagree with you on the Christopher Hitchens article being POV, but I don't think you've expressed your issues clearly enough to even discuss them. Please see [this] comment, as I'd rather give you a chance to explain that just revert the tag. Somehow I suspect that you want contrary views to certain of Hitchens' positions, which I really don't think will fly as a reason for a POV tag, and certainly not to the entire article as opposed to the sections in question. Thanks. CAVincent (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
someone daring me to revert
Hi! Can you do a favor? On Joe the Plumber we finally reached basic stability, but now one user is trying to start an editwar (sigh). If you feel that he might properly be reverted after reviewing this, I would think it a good thing (shades of Martha Stewart<g>) Collect (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Does not seem like much... Maybe time to ask for a WP:3O? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Am I allowed to post to this page?
Will you delete my comments if I answer your question? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Answering a question with another question? I call that washing your hands from taking responsibility. The answer is: You can respond on your talk page or not at all, but action or inaction on your part as it relates to my question is the only answer I need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you won't accept an answer on your talk page then I don't know why you bother asking. If you want to resolve the dispute I suggest dropping a note on the user's talk page. If you want to inflame the matter then the AE board might be the right place. Note that an AE case is going to involve the behavior of all involved users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Appalling suggestion
Hi, thanks for your comments here, however, I am appalled by one of your suggestions to block me!!
Well, I am not the angry user here and I don't need a 'cool-down' break for having reported this behavior here. If reporting such behavior would earn a block, it would only create an aversion towards the very purpose of having WP:ANI. Citing WP:BLOCK, "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. So I cannot be blocked 'solely' to cool me down. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption".
Now I am neither angry nor disruptive, but seeking action by reporting it here. User Srkris on the other hand is angry, disruptive, uncivil and is indulging in WP:HOUND. Blocking me, just because someone thinks that I should be, for a 'cool-down' effect would work exactly in favor of User Srkris who is stalking me to create a distaste and aversion towards Wikipedia. You'd succeed in helping him if you block me to 'cool' me down!!
Presenting or endorsing a case to block me, just to foster 'equality' is sheer nonsense. Please don't create an aversion towards WP:ANI, otherwise no one would report anything here owing to the fear of being 'blocked' just for reporting bad behaviour, since some admin might be trying to foster 'equality'. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 08:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- With reference to this User Srkris is involved in every single thing that WP:HOUND describes: "following another user around" accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. All this has been happening for over ten days, and for over a week after I have reported it here. I have listed ALL of them there. I request you to look into this. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jossi, Sudharsansn makes an addition to the archived ANI report. Is that allowed? Can I add my reply to that too? Kris (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed his last comment. Please pursue WP:DR as advised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- If it is closed, why is it showing up on the page still? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| You haven't quite earned it yet, so this is something of an act of faith... Ty 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Previous Block Incidents
What is the reason for the blocks on 04:12, 17 November 2008, is it because of the APEX article or was it something else? --Ramu50 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Reverting
You'll probably delete this comments, but I'll remind you too that Prem rawat topic is under probation and that reverting without explanation is unhelpful. Perhaps you should take a break from the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- You and Momento are seemingly engaged in a disruptive editing behavior, that seems to be based on personal animosity rather than any common sense or good editorial judgment. Take a break, would you? You should consider the possibility that what you and Momento are doing there is simply stupid. No one will win, and you know that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Momento made many edits in the past two day which you left intact, while you reverted all of my edits. You are not a neutral party here. If yo uwant to play one, revert back further. Otherwize this is another example of your biased editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Levi's Logo
Hello, i noticed that you deleted the logo Image:Levi strauss logo.png from the Levi Strauss & Co. article, you cited in your edit summary "rv. That is the logo of a product and not of the company, and thus fails WP:FAIR" I don't want to start an edit war so lets try to settle this ASAP. Thanks Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk Review Me! 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:FAIR. Logos of products can be used in articles about the products themselves. The logo you uploaded is not the logo of the company and the article is about the company and not the Levi's brand. You can comment here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:Levi_strauss_logo.png ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jossi, last month you brought up a question at this talk page about disputed territories. Perhaps you'll take a look at how I thought to address it and offer an opinion. Thanks, Grsz11 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up,Grsz11. I made an edit and explained in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steve_Dillard which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom candidacy
I'm sorry to spam you but I have (exceptionally) commented on your oppose. If you wish to respond, would you please do so on my election talk page. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Re arbcom
Don't mean to sound snarky, but re "WR posters do not get my vote", you are aware that you've voted support for multiple other WR posters, and that at least four of the current Arbcom are also regulars there? – iridescent 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)