Hi Joe. I saw you never got a proper canned welcome message to Wikipedia, so here you go:
Welcome!
Hello, Joebeone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Happy editing!
Mike Dillon 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Joseph. I just wanted to let you know that I'm no longer watching University of California, Berkeley and don't intend to work on it in the future. I realized that that article has basically been a simmering edit war between those who want to present the admittedly impressive facts about the University and those who want to editorialize and say what a great place "Cal" is. After starting the discussion over the changes by User:Ckoala84, I realized that I just don't care. I waste enough time on Wikipedia without having to "debate" whether we should call the University "Cal" throughout the article. Sorry I can't be part of making UC Berkeley a featured article. Happy editing. Mike Dillon 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what you think about the Borda fixed point issue. I meant for this to be a straightforward discussion of whether the topic should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm surprised by how it escalated so quickly. If it seems sudden that I've brought this to mediation, realize that Colignatus' comment ended with a (confusing and misguided) threat towards me, and any way I can see to respond without dispute resolution would make the situation worse.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Phew - looks like it's over. I wouldn't worry at all about the e-mail; I imagine it's just going to make your dean's secretary's morning a bit more surreal. On my side, I find the image of President Hockfield taking time to look at a Wikipedia dispute very amusing. "Forget acquiring research grants, I'll go look at what one undergrad is doing on the Web."
Anyway, thanks for coming to my defense and sorry that you got wrapped up in this. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joebeone. I see what you mean. I was just thinking about how he died before Keak Da Sneak created the term. But you're right, perhaps you could write "gangsta rapper and considered one of the predecesors of the hyphy movement". Just an thought, you can do whatever you want with it. ;) P.S. it looks like Thizzface.gif got deleted, oh well. -- Khoikhoi 05:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by "blasting a lot of good information out of existence." I added information not removed. I have no problem with starting a dialogue. I was in the process of writing to the talk page during your revert. There are two opposition sections now, just retitled. Please don't remove all my new information. 68.50.103.212 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you have edited Hip Hop related articles. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. -- βig ¶ 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the PDF, I've read it. :) Though I still didn't see anything about the hat, or anything that listed her as "premier researcher". But it can definitely be used as a reference in the article. Also, just to be clear: Your editing the article isn't the problem. I'm not attacking you, I'm not attacking Danah. I've heard her speak (sans ears), and I agree that she's a remarkable individual with timely and fascinating research. The question in my mind was whether or not she had amassed a sufficient body of work to make the "notability" case. Please keep in mind that I have *not* gone through and read all her papers, nor read all of the articles about her -- in my mind, the Wikipedia bio needed to make that case. To be honest, when I first saw it, the answer was, "No, this is just a fluff piece by a friend." But you've been putting a lot of work into it, and it's been dramatically improved. :) Things that I'd recommend adding, would be a list of her better-known papers, along with all the articles you've found. Also, when citing sources, you don't necessarily have to use the footnote system (which can be cumbersome). It's also acceptable to use an inline citation like this: [1], which may make things easier on you. And if you have any other questions, let me know! -- Elonka 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the help.
Thanks again Rawhide4u 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate you taking my case, but I was wrong because I didn't know about the "original research" policy. Thanks anyway! Jbm867 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I had to add a new section What to avoid about the assignments you made. It's, of course, not prohibited - it just doesn't seem to be a good idea. You should also have left an edit summary. I couldn't identify your assignments in the history of the page. Thank's for doing some office work at the Mediation Cabal anyway ;-) -- Fasten 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, there's an article that's headed for deletion, Paul Andrews (magician). I thought I'd let you know about it in case you wanted to set your watchlist, and observe the process of the deletion of a "real" vanity page. In fact, if you'd like to submit it for deletion in order to understand the process, feel free, otherwise I'll probably get to it later this week, if no one else does. FYI, -- Elonka 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The mediation cabal case at New anti-Semitism was taken on by someone, who was then, unfairly in my opinion, rejected by one of the interested parties. This case won't be continuing, but not because it was abandoned by the submitter (me) TreveX talk 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this already. The debate is done and the original complainer wants the case closed ( Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-04 tired light). jbolden1517 Talk 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Lets just close it out.
Hi Joebone, thank you for uploading the image of Mr Benkler. Do you have an image with a higher resolution? If so, could you please upload it, too? It would be best to upload the image to Wikimedia:Commons. That would be nice for other downstream uses. Thank you, yours sincerely, Longbow4u 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi I have noticed that User:Danielpi has been ignoring the case these past several days. He has not been taking a vacation because his user contributions clearly show that he has been active during these days. Shall the case be closed? Dionyseus 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I also wanted to say I really dig your homepage, you seem like a very interesting guy. I'd like to learn more about how to cite stuff and so forth dealing with the bay area hip hop culture, etc . . . Any advice / help would be much appreciated (just please don't look at where I go to school) Thanks a ton, Carlos
Sorry, I was a bit absent for the end of that mediation. Final exams and all prevented me from checking into Wikipedia. Thanks much for your civil, impartial, and expedient handling of the mediation. I am entirely satisfied with the compromise. Cheers, Danny Pi 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think that those external links in Yochai Benkler are more relevant to the article of The Wealth of Networks. There is no need to duplicate them in the article of Yochai Benkler. That's why I think they are unnecessary links in there. Please let me know your opinions. -- Neo-Jay 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying about the mediation cabal. I will respond after my two term wiki-break. Str1977 (smile back) 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the easiest way to fix vandalism such as that on the E-40 page today? -- Carlos 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at the christianity spat, though both insist on their own POV Sarazani 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to email them in private is that ok, or does it all need to be 'out in the open?' Sarazani 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What is going on with that mediation? jbolden1517 Talk 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw you reverted the "highly reactionary" part. I think Keak talks about the evolution of the word, and i believe he mentions "highly reactionary." I'm not 100% sure though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skhatri2005 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 June 2006.
Joebeone, hello. You probably don't remember me, but I was involved in a [ dispute], which you mediated a month or two ago regarding chess champion Veselin Topalov, and the cheating allegations made against him. I'm sorry to say that the conflict has flared up once again, and we're now in arbitration (Dionyseus did some "research" and decided the compromise was no longer valid).
I'm not going to ask you to take sides or anything, but Dionyseus is claiming that he "won" the mediation [ (Fourth Paragraph Down)]. He's also claiming that it was "proven" in our mediation that my sources were unreliable. As I'm sure you have a life outside of Wiki (and I notice you mediate many disputes), I'll remind you that I provided numerous links, which Dionyseus dismissed for various reasons (which I considered fallacious, since those sources are all well established chess publications). You tried to achieve consensus about what might constitute a valid source, and we finally settled on including a quote from Andy Soltis's NY Post article about the cheating in the footnotes. At no point, however, was it agreed that my citations were not legitimate. Certainly, I never conceded such a thing, and having mediated a couple disputes myself, I know that's not the point of mediation. We merely excluded sources for the sake of finding compromise. However, Dionyseus is now acting as though it was a ruling on your part. Again, I'm not asking you to take sides, but if you could clarify on the arbitration page [ Here] what the nature of that mediation was, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There is very little original content on Procon.org, with almost all of it being a collection of quotes by other people. If you wish to add them back, go ahead, though I suggest that you check that the pages are noteworthy. However, user:Proconorg adding them counts as linkspamming. Ladlergo 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.
Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Avi rubin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anno saxenian.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! -- Elonka 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I'm in a bit of a dispute with another user on the VVPAT article and I know this is a subject area you have a fair amount of knlowedge about and interest in. I thought you might be able\ be interested in being of some assistance. I picked you in particular because of your views on the topic.
So if you've got a minute and the interest, check out the intro of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail article. I think the most contentious sentence that seems to be at issue is:
I only take issue with saying that it is impossible, particularly when it's stipulated that the machine could be corrupt. A corrupt VVPAT could systematically invalidate votes. My attempt at a compromise was (and is still in the article):
The key being "barrier" rather than impossible.
P.S. You've been out of the Wikipedia electronic voting world for a while. It's hard to find informed opinions willing to edit... You're welcome back anytime! -- Electiontechnology 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. I'm waiting for a reaction from the user who I started this discussion with. We'll see how it goes. -- Election Technology
I think he sort of missed the point I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Voter_Verified_Paper_Audit_Trail&diff=90661851&oldid=90493228 -- Election Technology 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Joe, he all but reverted your edits, and removed your Brennan Center cite. He commented on the talk page. I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. Arbitration? Admin intervention? -- Electiontechnology 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I don't even know what to say, check the VVPAT page and his comments on talk... -- Electiontechnology 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
joebeone, i saw this and thought you would have an interest in adding a page about turfin to the street dance template. i dont know much about it but hell- if krump has an article why not turfin Street dance is the article and the template for types of street dance is at the bottom. cheers Skhatri2005 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Joe! Hopefully, you guys can work on the article without being disturbed! =) Nishkid 64 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe, thanks for all your efforts on the VVPAT article. At this point I feel like I should apologize for getting you involved... I had about the same experience with Taintain once already (which is why I invited you into the discussion), so I know what it's like. It is sad to see such an important article more or less hijacked by someone with such an obvious agenda... Best of luck Electiontechnology 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if maybe it would be good to clean up the Mobb Music page and make it more streamlined with the hyphy page. We've done a lot of work on the hyphy page, but I don't know much about mobb music to do so. thanks Skhatri2005 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Joe, Any chance you'd want to help come up with a solution for the DRE / electronic voting articles? Right now the DRE article is entirely duplicated in the electronic voting article. Anything you could add to the DRE article to make it more unique would be a great help. If I remember right, we're you involved int those voter info sheets on voting machines by model with EFF and verifiedvoting? Was there a license on that content? Any other suggestions? Also, I'd really like to be able to separate the general criticisms of electronic voting vs DREs, as DRE's have some really unique concerns and I'm concerned it they're getting buried. -- Electiontechnology 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joebeone! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 889 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:American.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Joebeone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Joe. I saw you never got a proper canned welcome message to Wikipedia, so here you go:
Welcome!
Hello, Joebeone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Happy editing!
Mike Dillon 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Joseph. I just wanted to let you know that I'm no longer watching University of California, Berkeley and don't intend to work on it in the future. I realized that that article has basically been a simmering edit war between those who want to present the admittedly impressive facts about the University and those who want to editorialize and say what a great place "Cal" is. After starting the discussion over the changes by User:Ckoala84, I realized that I just don't care. I waste enough time on Wikipedia without having to "debate" whether we should call the University "Cal" throughout the article. Sorry I can't be part of making UC Berkeley a featured article. Happy editing. Mike Dillon 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what you think about the Borda fixed point issue. I meant for this to be a straightforward discussion of whether the topic should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm surprised by how it escalated so quickly. If it seems sudden that I've brought this to mediation, realize that Colignatus' comment ended with a (confusing and misguided) threat towards me, and any way I can see to respond without dispute resolution would make the situation worse.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Phew - looks like it's over. I wouldn't worry at all about the e-mail; I imagine it's just going to make your dean's secretary's morning a bit more surreal. On my side, I find the image of President Hockfield taking time to look at a Wikipedia dispute very amusing. "Forget acquiring research grants, I'll go look at what one undergrad is doing on the Web."
Anyway, thanks for coming to my defense and sorry that you got wrapped up in this. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joebeone. I see what you mean. I was just thinking about how he died before Keak Da Sneak created the term. But you're right, perhaps you could write "gangsta rapper and considered one of the predecesors of the hyphy movement". Just an thought, you can do whatever you want with it. ;) P.S. it looks like Thizzface.gif got deleted, oh well. -- Khoikhoi 05:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by "blasting a lot of good information out of existence." I added information not removed. I have no problem with starting a dialogue. I was in the process of writing to the talk page during your revert. There are two opposition sections now, just retitled. Please don't remove all my new information. 68.50.103.212 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you have edited Hip Hop related articles. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. -- βig ¶ 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the PDF, I've read it. :) Though I still didn't see anything about the hat, or anything that listed her as "premier researcher". But it can definitely be used as a reference in the article. Also, just to be clear: Your editing the article isn't the problem. I'm not attacking you, I'm not attacking Danah. I've heard her speak (sans ears), and I agree that she's a remarkable individual with timely and fascinating research. The question in my mind was whether or not she had amassed a sufficient body of work to make the "notability" case. Please keep in mind that I have *not* gone through and read all her papers, nor read all of the articles about her -- in my mind, the Wikipedia bio needed to make that case. To be honest, when I first saw it, the answer was, "No, this is just a fluff piece by a friend." But you've been putting a lot of work into it, and it's been dramatically improved. :) Things that I'd recommend adding, would be a list of her better-known papers, along with all the articles you've found. Also, when citing sources, you don't necessarily have to use the footnote system (which can be cumbersome). It's also acceptable to use an inline citation like this: [1], which may make things easier on you. And if you have any other questions, let me know! -- Elonka 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the help.
Thanks again Rawhide4u 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate you taking my case, but I was wrong because I didn't know about the "original research" policy. Thanks anyway! Jbm867 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I had to add a new section What to avoid about the assignments you made. It's, of course, not prohibited - it just doesn't seem to be a good idea. You should also have left an edit summary. I couldn't identify your assignments in the history of the page. Thank's for doing some office work at the Mediation Cabal anyway ;-) -- Fasten 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, there's an article that's headed for deletion, Paul Andrews (magician). I thought I'd let you know about it in case you wanted to set your watchlist, and observe the process of the deletion of a "real" vanity page. In fact, if you'd like to submit it for deletion in order to understand the process, feel free, otherwise I'll probably get to it later this week, if no one else does. FYI, -- Elonka 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The mediation cabal case at New anti-Semitism was taken on by someone, who was then, unfairly in my opinion, rejected by one of the interested parties. This case won't be continuing, but not because it was abandoned by the submitter (me) TreveX talk 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this already. The debate is done and the original complainer wants the case closed ( Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-04 tired light). jbolden1517 Talk 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Lets just close it out.
Hi Joebone, thank you for uploading the image of Mr Benkler. Do you have an image with a higher resolution? If so, could you please upload it, too? It would be best to upload the image to Wikimedia:Commons. That would be nice for other downstream uses. Thank you, yours sincerely, Longbow4u 11:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi I have noticed that User:Danielpi has been ignoring the case these past several days. He has not been taking a vacation because his user contributions clearly show that he has been active during these days. Shall the case be closed? Dionyseus 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I also wanted to say I really dig your homepage, you seem like a very interesting guy. I'd like to learn more about how to cite stuff and so forth dealing with the bay area hip hop culture, etc . . . Any advice / help would be much appreciated (just please don't look at where I go to school) Thanks a ton, Carlos
Sorry, I was a bit absent for the end of that mediation. Final exams and all prevented me from checking into Wikipedia. Thanks much for your civil, impartial, and expedient handling of the mediation. I am entirely satisfied with the compromise. Cheers, Danny Pi 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think that those external links in Yochai Benkler are more relevant to the article of The Wealth of Networks. There is no need to duplicate them in the article of Yochai Benkler. That's why I think they are unnecessary links in there. Please let me know your opinions. -- Neo-Jay 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying about the mediation cabal. I will respond after my two term wiki-break. Str1977 (smile back) 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the easiest way to fix vandalism such as that on the E-40 page today? -- Carlos 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at the christianity spat, though both insist on their own POV Sarazani 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to email them in private is that ok, or does it all need to be 'out in the open?' Sarazani 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What is going on with that mediation? jbolden1517 Talk 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw you reverted the "highly reactionary" part. I think Keak talks about the evolution of the word, and i believe he mentions "highly reactionary." I'm not 100% sure though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skhatri2005 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 June 2006.
Joebeone, hello. You probably don't remember me, but I was involved in a [ dispute], which you mediated a month or two ago regarding chess champion Veselin Topalov, and the cheating allegations made against him. I'm sorry to say that the conflict has flared up once again, and we're now in arbitration (Dionyseus did some "research" and decided the compromise was no longer valid).
I'm not going to ask you to take sides or anything, but Dionyseus is claiming that he "won" the mediation [ (Fourth Paragraph Down)]. He's also claiming that it was "proven" in our mediation that my sources were unreliable. As I'm sure you have a life outside of Wiki (and I notice you mediate many disputes), I'll remind you that I provided numerous links, which Dionyseus dismissed for various reasons (which I considered fallacious, since those sources are all well established chess publications). You tried to achieve consensus about what might constitute a valid source, and we finally settled on including a quote from Andy Soltis's NY Post article about the cheating in the footnotes. At no point, however, was it agreed that my citations were not legitimate. Certainly, I never conceded such a thing, and having mediated a couple disputes myself, I know that's not the point of mediation. We merely excluded sources for the sake of finding compromise. However, Dionyseus is now acting as though it was a ruling on your part. Again, I'm not asking you to take sides, but if you could clarify on the arbitration page [ Here] what the nature of that mediation was, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Danny Pi 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There is very little original content on Procon.org, with almost all of it being a collection of quotes by other people. If you wish to add them back, go ahead, though I suggest that you check that the pages are noteworthy. However, user:Proconorg adding them counts as linkspamming. Ladlergo 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.
Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Avi rubin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anno saxenian.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! -- Elonka 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I'm in a bit of a dispute with another user on the VVPAT article and I know this is a subject area you have a fair amount of knlowedge about and interest in. I thought you might be able\ be interested in being of some assistance. I picked you in particular because of your views on the topic.
So if you've got a minute and the interest, check out the intro of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail article. I think the most contentious sentence that seems to be at issue is:
I only take issue with saying that it is impossible, particularly when it's stipulated that the machine could be corrupt. A corrupt VVPAT could systematically invalidate votes. My attempt at a compromise was (and is still in the article):
The key being "barrier" rather than impossible.
P.S. You've been out of the Wikipedia electronic voting world for a while. It's hard to find informed opinions willing to edit... You're welcome back anytime! -- Electiontechnology 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. I'm waiting for a reaction from the user who I started this discussion with. We'll see how it goes. -- Election Technology
I think he sort of missed the point I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Voter_Verified_Paper_Audit_Trail&diff=90661851&oldid=90493228 -- Election Technology 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Joe, he all but reverted your edits, and removed your Brennan Center cite. He commented on the talk page. I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. Arbitration? Admin intervention? -- Electiontechnology 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I don't even know what to say, check the VVPAT page and his comments on talk... -- Electiontechnology 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
joebeone, i saw this and thought you would have an interest in adding a page about turfin to the street dance template. i dont know much about it but hell- if krump has an article why not turfin Street dance is the article and the template for types of street dance is at the bottom. cheers Skhatri2005 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Joe! Hopefully, you guys can work on the article without being disturbed! =) Nishkid 64 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe, thanks for all your efforts on the VVPAT article. At this point I feel like I should apologize for getting you involved... I had about the same experience with Taintain once already (which is why I invited you into the discussion), so I know what it's like. It is sad to see such an important article more or less hijacked by someone with such an obvious agenda... Best of luck Electiontechnology 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if maybe it would be good to clean up the Mobb Music page and make it more streamlined with the hyphy page. We've done a lot of work on the hyphy page, but I don't know much about mobb music to do so. thanks Skhatri2005 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Joe, Any chance you'd want to help come up with a solution for the DRE / electronic voting articles? Right now the DRE article is entirely duplicated in the electronic voting article. Anything you could add to the DRE article to make it more unique would be a great help. If I remember right, we're you involved int those voter info sheets on voting machines by model with EFF and verifiedvoting? Was there a license on that content? Any other suggestions? Also, I'd really like to be able to separate the general criticisms of electronic voting vs DREs, as DRE's have some really unique concerns and I'm concerned it they're getting buried. -- Electiontechnology 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joebeone! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 889 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:American.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Joebeone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)