Why did you call my fixing of vandalism an experiment? An activist for a political campaign has repeatedly edited Congressman Vito Fossella's page. I merely changed things back to a neutral point of view. I have no interest in the congressional race but I noticed frequent changes by someone who apparently is an advocate his his opponent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.192 ( talk • contribs)
A quick note of thanks for having reverted vandalism of my user page earlier today! └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi- Thank you for cleaning up the citations on the forgiveness page. I am still a bit new here. I am looking for a little artwork on forgiveness to add to the page. Perhaps under the artwork could be the quote: “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean.” Dag Hammarskjöld. It would seem that with you being an artist you would be the perfect person to talk to. Perhaps something like a child releasing a butterfly?
If you have any other suggestions as to the direction to take the page to make it even better, I am all ears. I have solicited input at the talk pages of religions and psychology with about a 40% success rate. I think this is an immensely important topic that cuts accross religious, spiritual and secular beliefs. Thanks again! -- speet 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments. If I could ask one other favor. I tried to put in a book reference, but the preview didn't work. Here is the Amazon link to the book [1]. I wanted to add it as a reference in the third paragraph at the end of the sentence that starts "As a gift to oneself". If you could give me an example on that one I can do the rest. Thanks -- speet 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again Jossi. I put some comments on the forgiveness talk page.-- speet 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. From the description and use of [[:Image:Vertical tabs sample.png], it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{ GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{ GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. You expressed doubts about my experience, so please, if you ever see me doing anything wrong, with or without admin powers, don't hesitate to let me know. Also, if there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, your portraits are quite beautiful. × Meegs 05:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Jossi, just a quick thanks for the barnstar, it's always nice to get these little tokens of appreciation. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I just wanted to let you know that the NPOV tag you inserted in Missionaries of Charity has been removed by Cbruno. I reverted his removal once, but he has gone back and reverted me again. Check out the articles history for his rediculous arguments. Not sure what you want to do about this, but I thought I would let you know. -- Hetar 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for covering my back. Cheers, - Will Beback 07:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
Waiting on response to Olmecs page protection on version that includes BOTH parties versions as described. *I see that my updates were noted as disruptions and their revertions were not. These actions validate and have bias towrds their behaviour which is in violation of Wikipedia policy, yet I who have been strictly adhering to it and the only one thus far to offer a compromise, am also the one one to be penalized by being blocked from edits and banished to the "talk page".
Please advise as as I was under the impression that Administrators were to stay neutral, from your comments it seems that mine were ignored. I hope that this was only an oversight, and once again I repeat that I agree with having the page protected with BOTH parties views included, and agree that Administrators interception is necessary.
Kind Regards.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I'm still over the limit, plus I'd have to find a third name because only new usernames are allowed, I don't know if they can merge two old acounts to one new one. I guess I should make so many edits. Cheers, - Will Beback 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the spelling fix. I'm sure you have been following the discussions with SSS108 and Andries. Please feel free to give second opinions. (even to me!) -- BostonMA 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi- I got permission after the artist, Magdalene Chan, approved the license. I kept emails if needed. I am a lawyer (although not my field) and was quite careful and specific. Let me know if what I put on the image talk page was good enough. Thanks for the help-- speet 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Still awaiting a response, to the meassage I posted a few days back.
Regards.
I read the section: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith."
You asked me to discuss matters before editing another's work. What is frusterating me is that you are not giveing me the same consideration. You are acting quickly and heavy handedly to impose your POV. I asked for patience, you just went ahead and did what you wanted. I would ask that your revert your change and work "with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." Please slow down and work with me, respect I have other obligations and conclude we cannot reach a consensus before just doing whatever fits your POV. I am offline until tommorw at the earliest-- speet 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What's up with this? "(See Species: In biology, a species is the basic unit of biodiversity. In scientific classification, a species is assigned a two-part name in Latin.) " That's nonsense. Jim62sch 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... This amazing. Still waiting a response. Perhaps the silence speaks volumes. Reading through your discussion page, I am now growing very concerned as to how a refusal to block one person for reversions by deciding his actions constituted a content dispute (even though this person had no sources), yet I sustained a block even though I submitted several sources and references in detail. You refused to block this person because you declared his actions as part of a content dispute. Yet I am still awaiting an explanation for my own block... I had communicated with a previous administrator who tried to block me, then removed the block, and then you decided to reverse this decision, without the courtesy of explanation to myself and still appear to be refusing to communicate. Once again, these are grave concerns that appear to be an abuse of administrative priviledges. The other party, that I am indeed in "content dispute" with, openly *declared that he had broken the same revert rule as I. I have to commend his honesty, as no administrator had decided to take this into consideration, which therefore leaves me very concerned about your decision to only penalize me, and appear to resort to no further communication on the matter. I feel that I at least deserve an explanation, as after a review of the whole situation I can see no other reason apart from content and/or user bias. This does not comply with the policy that declares administrator neutrality when handling such matters as this. Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.81.80 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, you are one of the couple of editors I was refering to here. Please join in if you have the time/inclination. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding your message to me on my so-called "vandalism" -
The reason for removing was mentioned in the talk page and Pournami, who originally extended the quote had no problem with it. I see no reason why this should be considered vandalism. [[[User:129.186.232.42|129.186.232.42]] 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]
Please think twice before you spend your time in improving it. Andries 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I made some proposed changes to the lead which are on the talk page and wanted to let you know for your input. I am not trying to stir anything up with my proposal on the lead, just trying to tighten things up and provide some future direction. I expanded the religion paragraph in one area and tightened it up in another. It could still use some style and citation help. I am trying to address everyone's concerns I saw on the talk page and my own. I am prepared to move forward without looking back. I understand if you wish a response, if so I will view it, consider it and again move forward. -- speet 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to get your opinion. A while back I refactored articles about Ward Churchill into several parts out of WP:SIZE. Anyway, another editor recently renamed the two siblings of the main bio. I think there was some sense to his change (eliminate parentheses), but I'm not sure the new form is mellifluous. Could you opine at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to see we're assuming good faith. Did anyone notify this chap on his talkpage concerning this matter...? If not, it should be carried out, as fixing these copyvios is his responsility, not just ours. However, from what you've said, you're going to go and start the task regardless. I deal in image tagging quite a bit; if you'd like me to assist in this tedious task, give me a shout on my talkpage, and I'll be glad to lend a had. - Zero Talk 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
jossi, do you know where the appropriate place is to escalate my problem with Felonious? I refuse to encourage him through toleration. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a {{ hangon}} on this. You haven't provided information of what it's a copyvio of that I see? - brenneman {L} 06:42, 23 March 2006
You may want to check out Image:Canis dire.jpg - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent comment about the Mishler transcript and the
Prem Rawat article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at
my discussion page.
- Scott P. 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, yes, you have a good point. I assume you notified others, yes? Also, it is rather difficult to be WP:CIVIL when certain editors are being WP:DENSE, have little clue of WP:CON and amusingly use WP:NPOV to cover their POV edits. Jim62sch 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards -- Realek 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
I apologize for not having gotten around to working on that guideline yet. Some real-life stuff (I actually have to do work for pay, for example), and also some other WP distractions (dunno if you know Slavoj Zizek; but an editor went into personal attack mode over my attempt to reduce some unencyclopedic WP:OR-ish "critique" stuff there). I'll still try to get around to some verbal flare... but don't count on me finding the time and attention as a sure thing. All apologies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please carry out your threat to block User talk:203.33.181.52 as you warned him you would? He vandalised list of golfers again yesterday, this time by adding a golfer born in 2006. Osomec 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you should go and contact the first person on the queue of coaching requests by yourself so that the progress doesn't get stuck. So far I've contacted titoxd, the coordinator, but got no response. -- D e ryc k C. 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi, we may have been editing at the same time, so you may not have noticed that I clarified my question to you on the SSB talk page. -- BostonMA 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! While User:Titoxd is on a Wikibreak, he gave me permission to do some leg-work concerning Esperanza admin coaching. I noticed you tried to contact User:Friday to offer your services, but it doesn't appear as if he's replied. Would you mind if I assigned you User:Siva1979, who is first on the "unassigned" list? Thanks for your time! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you were aware, but this page is currently an AfD. The consensus was strongly towards Delete, but I don't think it was heading towards Speedy Delete. Just FYI, Gwernol 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone deletes your comment from their talk page and in the edit summary says some nasty things about you, is that a violation of the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks? -- User:Lord_Chess
|
|
Jossi,
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. -- BozMo talk 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Taipei American School is not vandalism, it is reverting vanity informatino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.170.134 ( talk • contribs)
I did!!! 136.152.170.134 23:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the involved editors are all students and alumni of TAS, which violates Vanity. Usually people in Taiwan cannot edit english encyclopedias. If it were not for students and alumni of TAS, the page wouldn't even be up there. 136.152.170.134 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
if you look at the history of the article, and their user pages, they are clearly TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
most of the article written by benjamintsai and allentchang, who are both TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jossi. I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Jossi. I'm reinstating your indef. block on King of the Dancehall, whom I recently ran across, as his only contribution since seems to indicate he doesn't care (well, seems to indicate, nothing; he said it). If you disagree, let me know. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What's non-encyclopedic about reporting on Randi's hospitalization? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please be extra careful when editing an important page like WP:V--and probably don't mark the change as minor even if it would be on a normal page. The final section with the quote from Tacitus had lost its table formatting and was just a spew of broken wikimarkup after your change. Because you'd added newlines throughout the change the diff was useless, so I just reverted that one section rather than go to the effort to figure out which change was the cause. Feel free to redo whatever changes you had made to it if you want--sorry I was lazy and didn't figure try to figure it out. Nothings 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you include the source of Image:Semacode.png? I wish to move it to commons: so I could use it on other projects . Thankyou. Bawolff 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Please revert the edits by Merecat that are clearly violating the spirit of the mediation he has suggested. I feel it is highly uncivil to continue inserting his edits while he knows they are disputed and because of that we have asked for mediation.! Nomen Nescio 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you would point out at the RFC, your assesment of my talk page efforts, I would appreciate it. Merecat 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I disagree to a great extent with the accusations that you make against me, though I admit that I made minor mistakes lately. Please provide evidence of your accusations on talk:Sathya Sai Baba against me or retract them. Thanks. Andries 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi Thanks for the Advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates ( talk • contribs)
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
User talk:198.83.120.99 vandalized again, this time IpodLinux... Ban this one now? Maartenvdbent 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that annoying car hire IP address, everyday is the same thing, that page is really a good target for spammers and other vandalism. I wanted to report that to an admin, but I didn't knew how. Thanks! Afonso Silva 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, another IP address, from the same range as the one you blocked yesterday, introduced that same car hire links in the article again, can you so something? Thanks! Afonso Silva 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you call my fixing of vandalism an experiment? An activist for a political campaign has repeatedly edited Congressman Vito Fossella's page. I merely changed things back to a neutral point of view. I have no interest in the congressional race but I noticed frequent changes by someone who apparently is an advocate his his opponent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.192 ( talk • contribs)
A quick note of thanks for having reverted vandalism of my user page earlier today! └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi- Thank you for cleaning up the citations on the forgiveness page. I am still a bit new here. I am looking for a little artwork on forgiveness to add to the page. Perhaps under the artwork could be the quote: “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is again made clean.” Dag Hammarskjöld. It would seem that with you being an artist you would be the perfect person to talk to. Perhaps something like a child releasing a butterfly?
If you have any other suggestions as to the direction to take the page to make it even better, I am all ears. I have solicited input at the talk pages of religions and psychology with about a 40% success rate. I think this is an immensely important topic that cuts accross religious, spiritual and secular beliefs. Thanks again! -- speet 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments. If I could ask one other favor. I tried to put in a book reference, but the preview didn't work. Here is the Amazon link to the book [1]. I wanted to add it as a reference in the third paragraph at the end of the sentence that starts "As a gift to oneself". If you could give me an example on that one I can do the rest. Thanks -- speet 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again Jossi. I put some comments on the forgiveness talk page.-- speet 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. From the description and use of [[:Image:Vertical tabs sample.png], it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{ GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{ GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. You expressed doubts about my experience, so please, if you ever see me doing anything wrong, with or without admin powers, don't hesitate to let me know. Also, if there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, your portraits are quite beautiful. × Meegs 05:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Jossi, just a quick thanks for the barnstar, it's always nice to get these little tokens of appreciation. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I just wanted to let you know that the NPOV tag you inserted in Missionaries of Charity has been removed by Cbruno. I reverted his removal once, but he has gone back and reverted me again. Check out the articles history for his rediculous arguments. Not sure what you want to do about this, but I thought I would let you know. -- Hetar 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for covering my back. Cheers, - Will Beback 07:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
Waiting on response to Olmecs page protection on version that includes BOTH parties versions as described. *I see that my updates were noted as disruptions and their revertions were not. These actions validate and have bias towrds their behaviour which is in violation of Wikipedia policy, yet I who have been strictly adhering to it and the only one thus far to offer a compromise, am also the one one to be penalized by being blocked from edits and banished to the "talk page".
Please advise as as I was under the impression that Administrators were to stay neutral, from your comments it seems that mine were ignored. I hope that this was only an oversight, and once again I repeat that I agree with having the page protected with BOTH parties views included, and agree that Administrators interception is necessary.
Kind Regards.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I'm still over the limit, plus I'd have to find a third name because only new usernames are allowed, I don't know if they can merge two old acounts to one new one. I guess I should make so many edits. Cheers, - Will Beback 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the spelling fix. I'm sure you have been following the discussions with SSS108 and Andries. Please feel free to give second opinions. (even to me!) -- BostonMA 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi- I got permission after the artist, Magdalene Chan, approved the license. I kept emails if needed. I am a lawyer (although not my field) and was quite careful and specific. Let me know if what I put on the image talk page was good enough. Thanks for the help-- speet 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Still awaiting a response, to the meassage I posted a few days back.
Regards.
I read the section: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith."
You asked me to discuss matters before editing another's work. What is frusterating me is that you are not giveing me the same consideration. You are acting quickly and heavy handedly to impose your POV. I asked for patience, you just went ahead and did what you wanted. I would ask that your revert your change and work "with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not." Please slow down and work with me, respect I have other obligations and conclude we cannot reach a consensus before just doing whatever fits your POV. I am offline until tommorw at the earliest-- speet 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What's up with this? "(See Species: In biology, a species is the basic unit of biodiversity. In scientific classification, a species is assigned a two-part name in Latin.) " That's nonsense. Jim62sch 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... This amazing. Still waiting a response. Perhaps the silence speaks volumes. Reading through your discussion page, I am now growing very concerned as to how a refusal to block one person for reversions by deciding his actions constituted a content dispute (even though this person had no sources), yet I sustained a block even though I submitted several sources and references in detail. You refused to block this person because you declared his actions as part of a content dispute. Yet I am still awaiting an explanation for my own block... I had communicated with a previous administrator who tried to block me, then removed the block, and then you decided to reverse this decision, without the courtesy of explanation to myself and still appear to be refusing to communicate. Once again, these are grave concerns that appear to be an abuse of administrative priviledges. The other party, that I am indeed in "content dispute" with, openly *declared that he had broken the same revert rule as I. I have to commend his honesty, as no administrator had decided to take this into consideration, which therefore leaves me very concerned about your decision to only penalize me, and appear to resort to no further communication on the matter. I feel that I at least deserve an explanation, as after a review of the whole situation I can see no other reason apart from content and/or user bias. This does not comply with the policy that declares administrator neutrality when handling such matters as this. Tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.81.80 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, you are one of the couple of editors I was refering to here. Please join in if you have the time/inclination. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Regarding your message to me on my so-called "vandalism" -
The reason for removing was mentioned in the talk page and Pournami, who originally extended the quote had no problem with it. I see no reason why this should be considered vandalism. [[[User:129.186.232.42|129.186.232.42]] 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]
Please think twice before you spend your time in improving it. Andries 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I made some proposed changes to the lead which are on the talk page and wanted to let you know for your input. I am not trying to stir anything up with my proposal on the lead, just trying to tighten things up and provide some future direction. I expanded the religion paragraph in one area and tightened it up in another. It could still use some style and citation help. I am trying to address everyone's concerns I saw on the talk page and my own. I am prepared to move forward without looking back. I understand if you wish a response, if so I will view it, consider it and again move forward. -- speet 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to get your opinion. A while back I refactored articles about Ward Churchill into several parts out of WP:SIZE. Anyway, another editor recently renamed the two siblings of the main bio. I think there was some sense to his change (eliminate parentheses), but I'm not sure the new form is mellifluous. Could you opine at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to see we're assuming good faith. Did anyone notify this chap on his talkpage concerning this matter...? If not, it should be carried out, as fixing these copyvios is his responsility, not just ours. However, from what you've said, you're going to go and start the task regardless. I deal in image tagging quite a bit; if you'd like me to assist in this tedious task, give me a shout on my talkpage, and I'll be glad to lend a had. - Zero Talk 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
jossi, do you know where the appropriate place is to escalate my problem with Felonious? I refuse to encourage him through toleration. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a {{ hangon}} on this. You haven't provided information of what it's a copyvio of that I see? - brenneman {L} 06:42, 23 March 2006
You may want to check out Image:Canis dire.jpg - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent comment about the Mishler transcript and the
Prem Rawat article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at
my discussion page.
- Scott P. 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, yes, you have a good point. I assume you notified others, yes? Also, it is rather difficult to be WP:CIVIL when certain editors are being WP:DENSE, have little clue of WP:CON and amusingly use WP:NPOV to cover their POV edits. Jim62sch 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards -- Realek 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
I apologize for not having gotten around to working on that guideline yet. Some real-life stuff (I actually have to do work for pay, for example), and also some other WP distractions (dunno if you know Slavoj Zizek; but an editor went into personal attack mode over my attempt to reduce some unencyclopedic WP:OR-ish "critique" stuff there). I'll still try to get around to some verbal flare... but don't count on me finding the time and attention as a sure thing. All apologies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please carry out your threat to block User talk:203.33.181.52 as you warned him you would? He vandalised list of golfers again yesterday, this time by adding a golfer born in 2006. Osomec 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you should go and contact the first person on the queue of coaching requests by yourself so that the progress doesn't get stuck. So far I've contacted titoxd, the coordinator, but got no response. -- D e ryc k C. 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi, we may have been editing at the same time, so you may not have noticed that I clarified my question to you on the SSB talk page. -- BostonMA 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! While User:Titoxd is on a Wikibreak, he gave me permission to do some leg-work concerning Esperanza admin coaching. I noticed you tried to contact User:Friday to offer your services, but it doesn't appear as if he's replied. Would you mind if I assigned you User:Siva1979, who is first on the "unassigned" list? Thanks for your time! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you were aware, but this page is currently an AfD. The consensus was strongly towards Delete, but I don't think it was heading towards Speedy Delete. Just FYI, Gwernol 22:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone deletes your comment from their talk page and in the edit summary says some nasty things about you, is that a violation of the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks? -- User:Lord_Chess
|
|
Jossi,
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. -- BozMo talk 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Taipei American School is not vandalism, it is reverting vanity informatino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.170.134 ( talk • contribs)
I did!!! 136.152.170.134 23:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the involved editors are all students and alumni of TAS, which violates Vanity. Usually people in Taiwan cannot edit english encyclopedias. If it were not for students and alumni of TAS, the page wouldn't even be up there. 136.152.170.134 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
if you look at the history of the article, and their user pages, they are clearly TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
most of the article written by benjamintsai and allentchang, who are both TAS alumni 136.152.170.134 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jossi. I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Jossi. I'm reinstating your indef. block on King of the Dancehall, whom I recently ran across, as his only contribution since seems to indicate he doesn't care (well, seems to indicate, nothing; he said it). If you disagree, let me know. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What's non-encyclopedic about reporting on Randi's hospitalization? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please be extra careful when editing an important page like WP:V--and probably don't mark the change as minor even if it would be on a normal page. The final section with the quote from Tacitus had lost its table formatting and was just a spew of broken wikimarkup after your change. Because you'd added newlines throughout the change the diff was useless, so I just reverted that one section rather than go to the effort to figure out which change was the cause. Feel free to redo whatever changes you had made to it if you want--sorry I was lazy and didn't figure try to figure it out. Nothings 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you include the source of Image:Semacode.png? I wish to move it to commons: so I could use it on other projects . Thankyou. Bawolff 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Please revert the edits by Merecat that are clearly violating the spirit of the mediation he has suggested. I feel it is highly uncivil to continue inserting his edits while he knows they are disputed and because of that we have asked for mediation.! Nomen Nescio 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you would point out at the RFC, your assesment of my talk page efforts, I would appreciate it. Merecat 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I disagree to a great extent with the accusations that you make against me, though I admit that I made minor mistakes lately. Please provide evidence of your accusations on talk:Sathya Sai Baba against me or retract them. Thanks. Andries 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jossi Thanks for the Advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socarates ( talk • contribs)
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
User talk:198.83.120.99 vandalized again, this time IpodLinux... Ban this one now? Maartenvdbent 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that annoying car hire IP address, everyday is the same thing, that page is really a good target for spammers and other vandalism. I wanted to report that to an admin, but I didn't knew how. Thanks! Afonso Silva 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, another IP address, from the same range as the one you blocked yesterday, introduced that same car hire links in the article again, can you so something? Thanks! Afonso Silva 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)