Starting 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at
IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to
Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--
Cailil
talk
21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence | |
I, Folic Acid, award you, Jehochman, this Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st class) for your outstanding conduct to date as an admin (and a new one, at that). |
Thank you! - Jehochman Talk 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
El C, when you deleted that noticeboard (how often do you get to delete one of those?), you left the talk page. Was that your intention, or unintention? - Jehochman Talk 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jonathan, dropping you a line so you know it's me (Li) with this id. Going work on my profile page this weekend after catching up on the stuff I missed out on at the beginning of the week. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyspinner ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
WP:DE/N, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
WP:DE/N is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
WP:DE/N, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that you've recently joined the Admin club, I hope you because a successful one. I really appreciate the compliment you left on my talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when is it inline with the blocking policy to block someone for being dead? -- John Reaves 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dude, to be honest, I didn't know it was a dispute or there was a problem (or would be). I went to the store and come back and I have created a major "thing" on ANI. Something I didn't intend to do. I have no stake in the Hal Lindsey article, none. I haven't actually watched the guy's show, only seen TBN for a split second when flipping through the channels, I really have no stake there. I was only attempted to remove edits that could be in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule (not sure what the exact rule is). If I messed up, then I do greatly apologize. I know radio stations and User:Bee Cliff River Slob came over into the radio station relm with the same cruft and I reverted there and thought doing some cleanup for the other pages he hit would be nice too, hence my edits. Again, if I stepped on some toes in my cleanup, I do apologize. I have been here a year, but I am still learning all the rules and whatnot. Again, I am sorry. Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
For the reasons given here, I've taken the unusual step of reversing your indefinite block of Sadi Carnot. Please remember that indefinite blocks of established users by single admins are virtually never justified. Blocks are meant to be preventive, and the length of your block is obviously excessive in relation to the problem that needs to be solved. If you want a ban, take the matter to ArbCom, but I doubt very much that they will issue a ban in such a case. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed considering either an RFC or an ArbCom against your original block, as I believe that your approach to blocking is detrimental to the project. In the meantime, may I request that you remove the maintenance tags that you have added to articles to which Sadi Carnot has contributed. Your actions in doing so have greatly increased the amount of work for other editors in cheching these articles. If you are worried about the veracity of their content, please feel free to compile a list and to post it at WikiProject Chemistry, where it will get expert attention. Do not forget that there are over 28,000 articles related to chemistry on Wikipedia, so you tags will be gloriously ignored unless we actually know where they are. Given your other comments on this case, you may consider this a warning against disruption of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capture-bonding? Thanks very much. Keith Henson 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning here is less for the sake of SC than it is for the sake of PC62. PC62 was very upset about this, not because he agrees with SC's crackpottery (quite the opposite), but because a) SC has been useful on historical articles, b) SC wasn't warned first (which is true), and in general c) he (PC62) felt it was such a witch-hunt atmosphere he was going to resign his op bit over this, and possibly even take it to arbcom on a point of principle.
I think that would be a terrible waste of everyone's time and effort, and that my solution is an improvement. DS 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keith Henson 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The organization mentioned in this new page: Link Building Association .? -- Versa geek 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you can help? I understand that administrators can view deleted information. If you find time, could you please tell me:
Feel free to edit my comment to add answers. I quite understand you may be busy or otherwise unable to answer my questions so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks ~ TreeKittens 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your answers:
Cheers - Jehochman Talk 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn
I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.
I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400
I am Jehochman on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jehochman. Thanks. --- Jehochman Talk 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to the idea of Physchim62 as a mentor to Sadi Carnot. I don't believe he has the will or desire to carefully cross-check every obscure reference that Sadi comes up with, because I believe that Physchim62 has not come to grips with Sadi Carnot as a fraud. Kww 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to mess with your userpage, (to fix the red link) but wanted to let you know I took the stub we have and expanded on it a bit and sourced it a bit(and will be working on it a bit more if I can find some media on it), I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and make sure all looks well, (sadly I am fairly insecure in my writing abilities, most of my work has been CE/spelling corrections.) Thanks for your time. Dureo 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I'm impressed by your suprising acts of civilry and good faith toward Matt57, dispite the conflicts, so I award you this barnstar. Yahel Guhan 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.
The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.
I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Wikipedia because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.
IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: [2]. I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.
I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at WP:AN. While that discussion is ongoing, the block must remain in place, unless overturned by Arbcom. Once the discussion at WP:AN reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.
Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at
WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out.
Carcharoth
20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be more to all of this than meets the eye, and I must not be privy to something, because it's disconcertingly confusing to watch all that is unraveling with the various blocking and banning situations while the policy page remains strangely quiet (seems it's only you and I and a few others talking there, so I have to guess the real conversation is happening elsewhere). Since I'm not even an admin, I 'spose I have no business opining, but I don't want to be part of a Project that is governed by mob rule, even in the cases where we may ultimately be right (such as I believe is the case for SC). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, where is your consensus for your changes to WP:BAN? After my comments about your handling of the Sadi Carnot case (you have still to provide the list of pages which you tagged), I must formally warning you against disrupting Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
Might I remind you that this was not a sysop action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
With
this edit, you are returning to your habits of attacking users for their beliefs rather than their actions. You have obviously learnt nothing from this fiasco, and I can only hope that ArbCom gives you the cluestick beatingvery firm explanation as to why you have consistently ignored good faith and any arguments which run counter to your own, made personal attacks on users and have disrupted Wikipedia by your hysteria that you deserve. You are well aware of what my real response to the feeling of having to implement such obviously ill-discussed and ill-argumented bans was—I asked to resign as an administrator and only agreed not to so that I could participate in a soluton to this problem. You are crying for rights which you have systematically refused other participants in this case, myself included. I will stop myself from putting into words my other opinions of your behavior.
Physchim62
(talk)
12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly on your side, but I can tell you that your reaction to Physchim62's asininity is not helping your cause. An onlooker is going to think of you as a whiner. Kww 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I have no issues with the courtesy blanking, now that the issue is apparently resolved, and since he only deleted comments that I had struck-through anyway. There's always the historical record if ever needed. Thanks again! Arakunem Talk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel( Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you please try to figure out what Keith is talking about on Talk:Capture bonding#I agree? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the term used in abnormal and evolutionary psychology. Publicola 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no one has bothered me usually, thanks for asking. I would however, without naming them, have faced a few editors who've come to me and tried to tell me to stay away from certain articles. Maybe you know who they are but that doesnt matter; I'll try to keep it impartial. If there's no administrative official consensus on me working on a certain article, then they have no right to tell me to stay away from those articles. They should be warned in fact, not to own an article like this. An article is an article, its public. Obviously that was a violation of WP:OWN. If I violate any policies on articles e.g. consistently removing sourced material, then I can be warned for that. Thats perfectly ok. I think that was the only case where I got bothered a lot. I will say that one characteristic of disruptive users is that they are unable to see things other than from a personal-issue point of view i.e. - well you know what I mean. "You're editing this article because you want to attack me" - well thats not true. People should not read more into what is just there. I'm editing it because I want to make sure it complies with the site's standards. In any case though, disruptive users dont win in the end, without doubt. Thats it, I havent faced any other disruptive editors to complain about. I've also in my opinion been blocked too strongly and if there's anything such as disruptive adminship, maybe thats it. I got a month's long block for what. That was too long, for nothing. Thats it. Thats all the disruptive activity that I've faced and yes I'll call it disruptive because it was unfair. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Elonka correctly tagged the article for cleanup and placed a prominent reminder on the talk page as talk page discipline has been poor there. There has been no improvement in 2 weeks, so I added a reminder to the talk page, particularly to the main contributor Paul McGowan some of whose comments are a little inappropriate e.g. "...debasing the cr*p" and and who I think caused you to tag the article for WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? I have left a similar note on Elonka's talk page -- Sannhet 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget Contributions 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Posting here to avoid sidetracking Physchim's talk page. I agree that you have been reasonable and I don't see any "witch hunting" in your actions (I do see it in some other people's, though). I also acknowledge that you considered the situation for months, and not only for two hours. I don't have the slightest doubt of your good faith. In fact, I only have two complaints: 1) that you only gave two hours for people to post objections before blocking. Had you been more patient, consensus would have been clearer, Physchim62 might have been more reluctant to revert, and a lot of trouble might have been avoided. 2) That Sadi Carnot had no clear and unambiguous warning. I think that all reduces to a philosophical difference of opinion; I think you preferred to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach (you said something like "I'll unblock him if he asks"), while I would have preferred a "warn first, shoot later" approach. -- Itub 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I would also be interested in getting your opinion regarding including some of the gory mosque massacre photos [5] as well. I have moved the images in question to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi can you either complete or remove the half comment at the bottom of this? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
hi sir. I need your help for this discussion in my talk page. I realy don`t know we must have difinition word in the first word of articles or no?! then you have time if I`ll need any help ask from you? regards,-- Gordafarid 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I feel like constantly reverting this person is almost futile, but at the same time I know their edits are ridiculous. I am reverting their edits one more time, but I don't plan on touching it again. I am fairly new to editing articles on wikipedia, so what exactly should we do about this? HebrewHammerTime 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I just left the same message for User:Durova. Just FYI.
I thought that this might be of interest for you. I am honestly getting tired of this sh**. WP:COI is a mess and used for everything against anybody. WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading.
-- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I hope things are going well for you. I'm dropping you a note because of repeated soapboxing by User:Caesarjbsquitti at talk feminism. I made an ANI post last night with diffs here. This behaviour from Caesarjbsquitti is disruptive and is a recurrence of the same from almost a year ago. I'd much obligied if you'd have a quick look. This user has not been template warned (as they are an experienced user) but cite policy has been pointed out to them 5 times (by 3 editors) in less than a week-- Cailil talk 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi stranger. A belated congratulations on the adminship! I had a question, and you've always been a good judge of this sort of thing for me previously. I was looking at this content dispute here, and an interesting question came up. If x number of sources say that something is true, but no reliable sources exist to counter that statement, is it safe to state that the something is true? It's an interesting question. We can't (as I understand it) put up counter-views without sourcing, and even when WP:FRINGE comes into play, even wacky theories, ideas, and purported facts need sourcing.
So, in short: if 10 reliable sources state a fact, but no reliable sources exist to counter that fact, can Example article state that "This is this."[1][2][etc.] until a valid counter-source arises? This is also assuming it is not a BLP of course. My question is specific to the Waterboarding article, after someone there raised this very question. I'm also very curious in general for understanding NPOV and verifiability's finer points, given that a handful of the articles I'm helping on now are borderline possible contentious territory. • Lawrence Cohen 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat also. I did it with Twinkle, not sure if that's the best way to do it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your question on my talk page. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Optional_question.-- Nick Y. 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you are well. Please note the activities and claimed identity of User:Linshukun. He seems to have resumed serious editing as of 24 October. I have discussed his apparent relationship with Thims at the Gladyshev afd as well as the forum posts allegedly written by him and answered by Jimbo. There is more. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain it all satisfactorily. This is complicated. As I have said before - we were given these clues deliberately so we should be cautious when interpreting them. I will try to post a more comprehensive comment when I can. Best regards -- TreeKittens 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm impressed with the solidity of the GRB article and its children. The material covers the observational facts well and includes the broad consensus on the modelling. Well sourced indeed. I will keep an eye out for this article. Let's hope it will achieve featured status :) Regards, 82.72.87.196 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Need 2nd eye here, you said you'd help. I am convinced the new account is a sock of netmonger and should be blocked, including netmonger, what do you think? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sockpuppet. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, see the page. Our first of the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My patience with you has run out. This edit is entirely inappropriate, as are many of your comments on the arbitration page. As such, I have requested to the Committee that you be banned for an interim period from editing Wikipedia, except for this page and for the pages of the arbitration. This does not affect my belief that you acted in good faith in blocking Sadi Carnot, however wrong I feel that that decision was. I simply believe that your judgement is such that you should not have the power to use administrative tools. It is your own actions which have lead me to this, dispite the fact the we have been able to co-operate on other dispute resolution. The matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.
Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced. Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Good morning Jehochman - I hope I can ask a favor of you. I came across this image today, and it seems to me to be a violation of copyright, or at least, a misrepresentation of who the owner of the copyright actually is. It's virtually the same as this well-established image, just with a bit of color and the Chinese characters edited out. I have to confess that I'm not very familiar with the procedures for questioning the copyright of an image, and my brief search for answers didn't yield much fruit. Would you mind having a look, and take whatever action you think necessary? And, if you'd be so kind, could you point me in the right direction of the proper procedures for this sort of thing, so I don't have to bug you in the future? Many thanks Folic_Acid | talk 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
{{copyvio|http://www.nndb.com/people/974/000086716/cks-sm.jpg}}Best regards, - Jehochman Talk 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to renumber the Proposed findings of Fact, because there are two number 14s. Could you protect the workshop page for a couple of minutes and do this before the problem gets any greater? Thanks in advance. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Violation of 1RR 1st, 2nd, 3rd and violation of WP:NPA calls in the edit summary [(rv sock edits) in revert three. Thanks Taprobanus 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You may not be aware of further discussions here and here. As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You wiped mine and Durova's comments under "Phsychim62 refused to abide by the consensus". You wiped yours, too. I restored mine and Durova's, but if yours was an accident, you might want to put it back as well. Kww 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, how are you? I leave this message because of your "faith in the system", and because I have recently opened a policy RFC. I share your faith in the wikiprocess and value your opinions. Peace and good days! Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman. First, I would like to thank you for your help with the Sri Lankan issues. Your work is much appreciated. Can you also comment on the following issue here please. Thanks Watchdogb 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching MindGuerilla. As you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of experience with sock-puppets, and what instilled my zero-tolerance attitude was good ol' SixString there. You didn't happen to catch the IP there, did you? Again, I appreciate you acting quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
ExampleRFCxxx|Talk: Wheel war}}
DMcMPO11AAUK/
Talk/
Contribs
09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
extra note - look at the signature, did you use 4 tildes or 5? DMcMPO11AAUK/ Talk/ Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Jehochman,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Any chance you could reinstate the block regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf? The sock-puppet activity has resumed unabated. Thanks. Myasuda 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regretfully, I'm no longer confident in your judgment as a sysop. Both myself and Dmcdevit have repeatedly requested for your to provide us with a concrete grounds for the block (diffs of recent misconduct). Will you be willing to, as a last resort, do so? Or is a formal investigation by the arbitration committee the only recourse to compel you? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While it might not be my place to contribute to the discussion here, I apologize if my handling as a first-timer made matters difficult for either of you. I don't hate anyone, and this wasn't a wtichhunt, at least, not for me. it was just my first time preparing trying to create a reply, and I wasn't anywhere near succinct (I was also concerned that too much brevity might be perceived as glibness). i have endeavored to be more so as I learn more about how this works. My apologies if any ineptitude on my part complicated the relationship between you two. That would indeed upset me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, received your note on my talk page, but not sure to which article you're referring. The only recent edits I've made for living persons are here, here, and here - all of which were simple typo corrections or removal of vandalism. In the future please include a reference to the article in question - otherwise it's difficult to learn from my mistakes. Thank you - Chewyrunt 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone else got it, which is ok under these circumstances, but thank you for asking me first! -- But| seriously| folks 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I've responded to your question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf. Thanks for asking! Myasuda 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
...For your help. Can you on my userpage explain my history please? KingPuppy 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
dear Jenochman, as an Admin,would be kind to have a look at the photo i posted of Alfred Rosenberg at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosenberg.jpg??i actually spent good time on this with the help of a friend of mine who's a lawyer.thank you much sir :) Grandia01 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the Dbachmann thread you closed. You said "ANI is for complaints, not investigations", but at the top of the page it says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"... :-) I also noticed that you said "Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints." That's Arbcom arbitrator/clerk language! :-) Carcharoth 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award | |
For your merits in bringing about the Sri Lanka dispute resolution, the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific award, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks. — Sebastian 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Please let me know whenever you need help. - Jehochman Talk 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me bringing our conversation that was happening on AN/I here - I think it's probably a more suited venue for now (feel free to cross post, or move back, or move to my talk at your discretion).
I think your idea of a central repository of community resolutions could be very powerful and useful - and perhaps not just in the area of editor's restrictions (which is indeed a sensible application). What would you think about somehow structuring content or policy discussions into it in some way? - You may have become aware that WP:NPA has returned to being a somewhat combative atmosphere, after a period of calm for a few weeks. Could this idea be applied there somehow? Just a thought at this stage.
Regardless, it's nice to meet you, best - Privatemusings 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was edit-conflicted with the archiving of the AN/I thread, so I just thought I'd post what I'd written here, since it responded mainly to you: That's a very good point; I've spent a lot of time recently looking for exactly why, where and what non-ArbCom restrictions have been placed on various editors. I urge you to propose something at the Village Pump.
Of course, I should point out that I having read the above discussion in its entirety and at one go, I can't see it being "supported by the consensus", but that is rendered moot by PM's suggestion.)"
Cheers! Relata refero 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your skill with chipmunks is unparalleled (yes, I know that isn't you, but for the sake of this compliment we will pretend it is). :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken Latitude group to deletion review here, if successful I would like to have the content from Latitude White (which you speedy deleted) restored so that it could be merged into the main article. [[ Guest9999 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, in regards to 24.19.33.82 ( talk · contribs), could you offer some input on what BLP violations you were alleging against that IP with this warning? This is in regards to the current ArbCom case. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Long comment by Privatemusings |
---|
Hi Jonathan (again),
I noticed this post of yours; An important question to ask, Privatemusings, is whether one's participation is helping the encyclopedia, or hurting it. I don't mean one's own opinion, no, I mean the consensus opinion of respectable Wikipedians. If an account is a net negative, sooner or later it will be blocked or deleted. If a person operating a set, or series, of accounts is a net negative, sooner or later that person will be banned. Policies and guidelines are written so we don't have to repeat ourselves, but they don't dictate what we do. One cannot point to rules and use them to justify a net negative. - Jehochman Talk 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) And it got me thinking (hopefully this isn't a bad thing!). My first thought was a bit defensive - to point out that according to your logic, the fact that I am unbanned currently reflects the fact that I am 'approved' by the community consensus (as indeed are you, and all active editors). My second thought was that you have consistently seemed to be a most approachable, reasonable and calm person, which led me to my third thought. Although I did need a cup of tea at that point. I wonder if you might be prepared to enter an open and honest dialog - preferably 'on-wiki' - with the aim of me understanding a bit more where you're coming from - and you perhaps offering some advice, thoughts, feedback, conclusions etc. etc. I hope you'll find me polite and reasonable, even in disagreement, and personally, I hope to be able to calmly discuss my perspective with someone who's prepared to calmly give their opinion directly. I'm hoping something personally quite useful (and possibly with valuable insight for application elsewhere on the wiki) may come of such a process - and I'm asking you because I think that if any of my points have any value, and you can see the value in them, then yours would be a very strong voice in spreading them (I speak here of bigger picture issues such as civility, ethical editing, pseduo anonymity, and most importantly, quality content development). I've got some specfic questions off the bat - perhaps initialy concerning this post; (edit conflict) Good block. That set of accounts created too much noise and not enough signal. - Jehochman Talk 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) and if you're prepared to read and respond a few posts a week for a little while, then I'll create a subpage and we can try and get somewhere. I will understand completely if it only takes you a couple of seconds to realise that you'd rather spend any spare time at all removing your toenails than involve yourself further with me - but I really would appreciate you considering it. Thanks, and have a nice day. Privatemusings ( talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Hi Jehochman; with regards to the speedy deletion of this article, I'm not sure how a job title classifies as a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content (or blatant advertising, as was previously tagged). I removed any references to specific hospitals. There seems to be enough material on the subject, even if it eventually turns out to be unnotable, but that's a different matter. Marasmusine ( talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed you had just deleted the Birendra Shah from CSD. It seems reasonable, since the article said virtually nothing. However, I think the subject is fairly notable, and was just about to remove the speedy and add a sentence or two describing the subject. Would you mind terribly if I recreated it and added some notes about the notability (briefly, Shah was killed by Maoists in Nepal a week or two ago, seemingly related to his journalism [7]). Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that you seem to have taken on a course of actions outside of consensus and and the processes of Wikipedia. You appear to have arbitrarily decided that certain contributors are problematic and are executing blocks without prior discussion or warning the "offender". I shall be reviewing the case of User:Academy Leader to see if any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines have been violated [refactored]. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)(edited by LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
File:Dainsyng.gif Less, I've always liked you. You are welcome to post here. I've adjusted my remarks, and no, I don't think you were acting on bad faith at all. - Jehochman Talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If I read correctly, you are now indicating that my voluntary withdrawal from that dispute is now enforceable as a defacto topic ban, and that DS just needs to link to this unresolved AN/I entry to report a "problem" with me? I never had a COI on Ted Frank's articles, my edit history on those pages is absolutely clean, and the editor on the other side of the dispute has been warned by 4 admins and an arbitrator to stay away. Yet I am the one who is to be watched? How does that happen? I tried to resolve the dispute civilly on that article's talk page, and he turned it into a war, then escalated to AN/I - and even as I am the one voluntarily backing off to avoid a monster drama, you tell David that my concession is enforceable?
Please tell me what I should have done differently, because honestly, I'm at a loss. It seems the only alternative I had was to ignore it, and let an editor add negative material to multiple articles related to the person with whom he had just had a very heated conflict. And doing it even though 5 respected users asked him not to.
I'm done with it, you can be sure of that, but please tell me what I should have done so I can avoid these "problems" in the future. ATren ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you suspect I am a troll? You did not make that statement on the previous thread, yet you seem to have made a judgement, which is unfair since I have no idea why. Please tell me why, so that I may defend myself. And, FWIW, I did not report Calton. ATren ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jehochman. Just noticed that the article VFS India may need to be checked for NPOV. Looks like an anonymous user is trying to delete recent media reports, and at the same time making this entry look more like an advert. I've undone some of the changes, and I see the item has been tagged. Links to blog posts unless by prominent sources shouldn't be in there. Question is, how to you inform or warn an anonymous user with a changing IP address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindavin ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jehochman - are you going to fix this? Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit policy pages of disputes that you might be seen to be involved in. I do not want to block you, but I shall have to if such actions continue. This is your final warning. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I've noticed you on AN/I and other boards and articles which I frequent, and I just want to compliment you on your stellar work as an admin, no matter what other people might say. You've got a heart of gold and the best of intentions (not the "road to hell paved" kind, either), and I just want to thank you for making Wikipedia a better place, despite all the nationalists, POV-pushers, trolls, vandals and griefers. Well done. :) DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you posted something in response to the subpages section on WT:AN that caught my eye. Would it be possible to make a template of the form {{friv|waaaaaahmbulance}} that would automatically place that "frivolous, try DR instead" box around the text of "waaaahmbulance"? I suck at templates, so I was wondering if you knew how. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a thanks for refactoring this page- it was getting a pain to locate items. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the Durova victims, first a sock of one, then a sock of another. No proof, no anything, just her own selfish motivation, more than likley stemming from some off balance sheet need to prove her own worth to the world. In need of help, she is. Songgarden in Deutschland, nicht vahr? 84.133.230.102 ( talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, please strikethrough your comment at Giano's talk page. I appreciate your loyalty, but I think it'd be better if you withdrew it. Durova Charge! 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. It is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a new user on Wikipedia with extensive experience in SEO, in addition to other fields.
I was looking over the Search engine optimization consultants and while it is good I belive it needs to be updated with new faces out there.
Some of the people I like others I hate, but they are the new breed of SEOs that SEO community respects and follows.
I recommend to nominate
Rand Fishkin www.seomoz.org
Vannesa Fox www.vanesafoxnude.com
David Naylor www.davidnaylor.co.uk
Andy Beard Andybeard.eu
Sebastian sebastians-pamphlets.com
Michael Gray www.wolf-howl.com
These are the most prominent and active SEOs in the industry. I believe each one of them deserves a page in WikiPedia. Igor Berger ( talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advise, and it will be very interesting to do it objectivly. But it will require a lot of work, so I hope I can adopt a user to help me with this.
As far as Sebastian is, who is he? He is very popular and has a very strong voice in the SEO community. He has many many followers who respect him and listen to him. But who is he? He knows his stuff inside out and rely very good. He has connections to Google, and Googlers listen to him. But who is he? Igor Berger ( talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman TalkI have added some new changes on Vanessa page, and also nominated Google Webmaster Central for a page, because it is very important for Google in alerting Webmasters of changes at Google. Before you cut and slash, talk with me here, or in email. If my grammar, structure, or syntax, is wrong please correct it. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I started building a page for Adam Lasnik but it was speedy deleted, I should have consulted you first, I am sory.
Can we build a page for Adam Lasnik or is there a request to WikiPedia, by him not to have pege?
I was just instructed to have a finished version built in a sandbox before bringing it public. How do I bring it public, do I just move it?
Also before building any pages, I like to have a senior editor nomination for the page, as to not waste time, playing in the sandbox. Igor Berger ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay so what will be your opnion on making Adam Lasnik page? Or shuold I post the question to the community? articles for creation Igor Berger ( talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sabastian being congratulated by Google at [ Google Webmaster Central Blog] for his help at Google Webmaster Help Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian claims to be an IT consultant in his Google Webmaster Help Group profile for smart-it-consulting.com Sebastian GWHG profile About Smart IT Consulting Services is a brand of Virtual Brains Inc., no imformation on VB Inc. ?
Looks like we dealing with primary SEOs that are on consultant page already, secondary professional SEO's that are notable that we have nominated, and tertiary New Age SEOs that are supported and aknowledge by Google, but may not be notable.
The tertiary SEOs use Gorila WarFare as their SEO practices techniques.
Now that the SEO has being diasected and brought out in the open, I will procede slowly with the pages that we nominated first.
Thank you,fyi, Igor Berger ( talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I set up the pages and gathering relative information.
If you can give me some feedback about the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Igor Berger ( talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, this is actually Writer1400 from the Toto page, I've had to use a different account to contact you so the person I want to report can't track me down because he has a real problem with me. I believe the user TheHYPO is violating the rule Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for the Barenaked Ladies page. He has basically taken complete ownership of the page. He almost never allows anyone to touch the page other than himself. Any edit that is done by another user has to be gone over by him and if he doesn't like it, it automatically comes out even though some of the edits are improvements. I was able to get in a few small edits but I had to agrue with him for a long time to do so and I've actually improved the page alot with my edits. The page as he had it had very few sources and lots of unsourced sentences.
Could you look at the page and see what you think? I know last time I had a problem with him(a different problem) you refered me to someone else but I really think it would be best if you handled this. You did an excellent job and I know everything will turn out good if you handle it. Thanks alot. Cd50 ( talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, you have been named in an arbitration case. Please add a statement when you can. Dmcdevit· t 11:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure to what extent it is pertinent to have you named as a party; still reading through. Regards, El_C 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to introduce myself as a newbee to Wikipedia. I recently added some things to the Mythology page, but user DreamGuy keeps removing then without explaining why. He must have done a lot of work on that page and maybe sometimes thinks he owns it? I also noticed that he has been "blocked" before for certain violations. I hope that you can help me find my way around here if necessary. I also hope that you had a good Thanksgiving!
Regards,
- Fkapnist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkapnist ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Herman Tumurcuoglu Somebody just droped this link http://www.searchengines-optimization.com
I checked the site, and it does not look like a Notable SEO site, also Googled Herman Tumurcuoglu, but found no SEO relevency, accept some SE Spam pages.
Plese advise. Igor Berger ( talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It was cleaned up by Sfacets, if you want delete this comment! Igor Berger ( talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lawrence, I've seen you around the Durova controversy and am wondering how you are doing? We haven't spoken lately. I hope you are doing well. I've been working on gamma ray burst and notice that you also have an interest in astronomy. - Jehochman Talk 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing all right, all things considered. Yes, I am trying to slow down a bit. If you would like to team up on some astronomy articles, I'd like that. - Jehochman Talk 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you ever get a chance or time, would you mind giving a few once-over copy-editing or reference formatting passes to Blackwater Worldwide? I'm thinking I want to focus on that or the Joe Szwaja article next, but in particular the Blackwater one. Its just a beast of an article to organize and I've been putting it off. I'd owe you an editing gnome/drudge work favor if you did. :) • Lawrence Cohen 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've mentioned you here. Feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. - Jehochman Talk 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, we may have a problem that Akismet flagging WikiPedia links in blog posts as Spam.
I had it happen to me 2 times already. Once with SEJ Loren and once with VFN Vanessa. I documented both cases with SnapShoot. Actually after running a test on SEJ, Loren took down Akismet and installed captcha.
I think the root of the problem maybe this.
Spam ocurences picked up by Projecthoneypot.org 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest 1,392 times 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape 1,392 times
http://www.projecthoneypot.org/comment_spammer_urls.php
This is a big problem for WikiPedia if Internet usrs cannot quote us, because of Akismet Spam filter. I am sure you know, Akismet filter has been causing problems for a long time with false positives.
If you need to see evidence that I have accumulated please let me know. So, please investigate this matter. Thnak you, Igor Berger ( talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tagging_empty_categories, and sorry for not replying more quickly.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, this post is so funny it will make you fall out of your seat...
Do we have a cetogory to nominate a best SEO post? Actually, I would say it is the best blog post in all categories. I hope we have some place to put this, this lady is very smart. Chimps are Smarter tan SEO's Igor Berger ( talk) 10:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, these guys are all notable, even Rebecca from SeoMoz is with them. Seo-Chicks
I nominate to do an article seo-chicks.com Igor Berger ( talk) 11:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Alot of energy in the SEO community. Andy Beard take on eclussion and PR the best analysis on the matter that I have seen to date. Igor Berger ( talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. The message I have just posted on the proposed decision talkpage has a reference, and an implied question, to you in it. I would very much appreciate it if you'd respond in the same thread. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the standard triple crown you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova Charge! 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Would that be a good name for it? I don't know if I'm up to a first draft, myself. Your flexible ideas like Mackensen said could be just what is needed so no one can come down heavy handed on fair reposting of correspondance. And to clear up offsite linking, etc. • Lawrence Cohen 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, refusing to justify actions transparently IS the issue. That is PRECISELY the issue (at least, insofar as privacy and/or copyright is used as a smokescreen) that I was trying to address in that paragraph - why not reword it instead of deleting?— Random832 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
I've just been collating citation tools links together (see [13] and [14]), and I notice that the link on your user page and the link given here ( Diff) are different. Furthermore, md5sum says the XPIs on each page are actually different. Would you mind clarifying which one is the latest version/official version so I choose the correct/best link? Thanks! 124.148.105.71 ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that an image that you uploaded from the NSF was recently nominated at FPC. I read their Copyright and Reuse of Graphics and Text policy and they grant permission for use on a case by case basis. Did you contact them for permission or have any other information regarding use of NSF graphics on Wikipedia? Please add this info to the image discription page if you do. If not, then let me know and I'll contact them and request permission. Thanks, Cacophony 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'e placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know that, as I say in ANI, I already told Physchim62 here about the ANI. I wouldn't open a debate about his supposed misuse without informing him first! However, it seems until now he has made some contributions but no answer... let's wait...-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Jon, if I may, can you tell me if the deleted article on
John Indian only contains the line shown in the deletion log, 'John Indian was the husband of Tituba' or if it contains more, and if it contains more do you mind userifying it for me?
Dureo
09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, thanks for your comments. Only problem is most socks seem to be operating, I'd need to warn them all. I've asked User:Alison to have a look, she's a Checkuser, so I'll see what she has to say. The list is becoming quite substantial!! The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I spoke on a panel about Social Media yesterday hosted by the SIIA. They're hosting a panel in Feburary about search engine optimization. They're interested in having someone from Wikipedia, and you were the first person I thought of. If you want to do it, contact Jeffrey Cutler: jeffcutler at yahoo.com. Raul654 ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that the editwarring was uncalled for, I don't think you should protect usertalk of a user who has been inactive for 3 days. Suva Чего? 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks for alerting me to this. I have no problem with reblocking Kelpin for 1 second to note that the initial block was a mistake, but I won't be able to get to it until later today. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it turns out there are a few sleeper accounts that turned up in the checkuser:
Can you block those? The request for ECW500 was stale, so it is unclear as to whether JB196 or ECW500 is behind this. But I'm willing to assume that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500 based on the (not so creative) usernames of his sockpuppets. This fellow's IP address' have been blocked as well:
And as I suspected all along, but added in as a clear party involved, User:SilentRage is not connected to these accounts whatsoever. — Save_Us_ 229 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I believe your latest protection of Ghirlas user page may be influenced by a bias. Could you please(I'm being polite here, see!)explain yourself. Otherwise I am inclined to suspect that your are abusing your admin privileges to help a friend make a point, ie making it clear that I have no right to wish happy days to Ghirla where ever he is... -- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If a user is inactive, Alexia Death, you do not get to write something demoralizing in the wiki-sense yet somehow excuse that with real-life well-wishes and a couple of emoticons. I have removed the protection. Do not continue to add that "I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing. It has been quiet [sic.] past few months," or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. El_C 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is little left to add to what El_C have said, just a note on protection. Only worst trolls get their talk pages protected. This happens when they use it for hate speech after being blocked and for no other reason. This harassment has to be dealt with by dealing directly with the problematic users while protecting the page is the wrong solution. Also, if you bothered to check, Ghirla is not exactly inactive. He shows up once in a while making a small edit or two. So, a two-week protection was very much uncalled for. -- Irpen 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The page on Favicons does not point out that IE is particularly poor at showing favicons. I added a link that comments on this. The link was removed by SEWilco as being spam. He seems to have a somewhat checkered history. I don't have the time or the motivation to get into some kind of debate on this. Is there a way of editing the page to reflect IE's weakness on this without getting into a fling-flang session?
Thanks for anything you can do on this. ( Bwelford ( talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
A few days ago you left welcome spam on the contributions page of User:Businessplan. Now the same article spam is reappearing, this time via IP 216.93.194.239. Four of the edits are timestamped after the welcome spam. These edits re-add the removed spam.
In addition to re-adding the spam to Private Banking and Business plan. This IP has also added a vanity line to the article Matt Sheridan - the name of the person being advertised in the spam on the other two articles.
I'm not sure of the proper way to handle this. Many thanks, Egfrank ( talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You're correct. We can sort this out. Trivially. El_C strikes out the highly offensive accusations, and I'll be on my merry way. An apology would normally also be indicated, but I neither demand that nor expect it.
I appreciate your trying to help out here, Jehochman, but El_C has stepped far out of line. Especially in the current climate, making accusations of collusion (implicitely off-wiki collusion, since it can be trivially observed I have basically never had any on-wiki interaction whatsoever with David) is something that just shouldn't be done. It's an attack on my integrity (and David's for that matter, although I can obviously not speak for his motivations). — Coren (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe You recently blocked the account Lindi James for being a sock puppet This user claims that he/she is not a sock puppet to the account Pebblesmaster as you allege.
I understand by looking up the contributions of ECW500 which seems to be the original account i can see some similarities but i can't access the history for Lindi James and can't figiure out how he is involved with this
I don't know the specifics of the case but i guess that an IP search showed that this user has the same IP address as a person that was using an account for negative purposes.
It would be appreciated if you would discuss this with( User Talk:Lindi James) and work it out so that everybody is happy.
He is unable to contact you as he is blocked hence i am only a messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger.
Let me know if i can help and how it turns out as im interested in this case. Thank you Printer222 ( talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this account was identified as a sock puppet as they share the same IP address, this has already been identified in his talk page, it is an interent cafe. As this is an internet cafe there are going to be users that are identified as sock puppets but are not accounts that are used for good purposes. I canot see any trace of contributions made by this account that can be deemed to be not in the best intrest of wikipedia.
Why ban an account due to the fact that they share an ip address with a person who has been blocked. That's why this user created an account in the first place. Unless they can be directly linked to the sockpuppet they should have never been baned in the first place!!! Printer222 ( talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
About User:PatLarsen. His account was just created today and he seems to have found User:Prester John pretty quickly. [17] — Save_Us_ 229 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. Since I noticed you giving a COI warning to one of the contributors to Wiley Protocol back in May 2007, you might be interested in participating in the current discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you while updating the tally for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 you removed a significant portion of the votes. I assume this was an accident so I undid it but please revert me if it served some purpose. -Icewedge ( talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Jonathan, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to working with you going into the future.
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
PS I was so impressed with your handling of that SEO COI case earlier this fall -- have you thought of doing OTRS work?
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.
Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.
I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D ( talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about removing your post -- I didn't even realize it till you replaced it. I was removing the duplicate and you managed to stick your edit in at just the wrong time. Sorry about that! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, thanks for the explanation. Does the bureaucrat explain anywhere how he reached his decision then? At least I suppose he must have a rationale if the vote is in the 70-80 range. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Best regards. PHG ( talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan - in light of your comment here, could you take a look at this please, which I just posted? It seems clear to me that Mister ricochet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another sock of Sixstring1965 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as was MindGuerilla ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and several others, and I think he too should be indef blocked. I'm interested in your view. Tvoz | talk 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I've sent you an email, please check. Thanks, R. Baley ( talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're game, would you mind checking out the last few sections of Talk:Waterboarding? There is a ton there, but the last 5-6 are the primarily current ones. All the rest are basically done in building a consensus over the past 30~ days. Given it's ultra-high profile nature, the chat has been decidedly civil, but given it's nature and that you edit under your real name I'll obviously understand if you don't want to wade in.
In that case, any recommendations for an admin or two that very good on RS and NPOV balancing issues who are neutral? :) My main concern is that I'm fine with adding language that favors a less "is torture" tone, if such sources could be found, but they've yet to be and people keep insisting otherwise. I'm basically looking for a few folks to watchlist it and chime in when anyone on any side of any fence starts to deviate from firm NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps banning this sad little moppet by machine ID seems a better course. Current ID: User:Youcantcatchme - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nom. -- Royalbroil 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't come close to "responding", and he's blanked every comment (including the entire threaded discussion regarding his block) that has questioned any of his actions. That you would post a "trolling" link at my page after the messages I left (did you read them) is a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Mr Which ??? 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please put them - SEO Spam domains on my talk page and I will investigate and put the owner domains on PHSDL Spam domains list...
If they want to be Famous SEO I aill oblige. http://seolinkmaster.blogspot.com/ I went down to blogspot and found out it's Indian Spam SEO trading links. Thanks, Igor Berger ( talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Re current situation on WP:AN, I have recently had email correspondence with Jimbo about a previous situation, which was covered by WP:SUICIDE. It's clear there at least needs to be a guideline for incidents like this. Whether it will be taken seriously remains to be seen. If you are soliciting contributions for a guideline, I'll willingly contribute. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
League of Copyeditors roll call |
Greetings from the
League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our
members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the
members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the
new requests system, which has replaced the old
/proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial
backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Thanks for the advice, you're right, I know. It's just Wiki-Road Rage sometimes, I guess. Snowfire51 ( talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking in the living persons noticeboard and saw there is a bit of a controversy regarding my recent edits. First, there seems to be a bit of a confusion on your part. It was I who first complained Mr Dannenberg had been potentially libeled and it was I who fixed his biography after a couple of vandals made him out to be a Nazi. I think someone may have edited my original complaint, but if you look what I first wrote you can plainly see I am the one who complained about the libelous remarks in the first place. If you could, I would appreciate not being cast the way I was and take out the line where you say I repeated those remarks. Thanks.
( NASA399 ( talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
I doubt Wordbywordbyword ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Kirbytime because I'm certain that Kirbytime couldn't come up with this quality of an article, which has references and looks like a very good contribution for a starter article. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to ask again, and you posted an offer before, but could I draw your attention to this? That page is falling apart fast with outside of policy POV pushing, and I think my attempts to try to broker anything there are completely fallen apart. Lawrence Cohen 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I EC'd you while adding the sections for discussions. Your comment to Randy is here. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Additional parties for your browsing pleasure are:
and FayssalF needs to recuse because of previous involvement. You can find additional evidence on Psychonaut's talkpage. Wise admins counseled a year ago this would be a circus. hmmmmm . They're all gone, smart fellows they were. Have a ball; Z has interrupted my editing for a year and a half. This is not going to take the rest of my holidays. This is a problem furthered by SV's untimely unblock where she should have let uninvolved admins handle the matter; the community needs to solve it. Oh, and how do you plan to handle Jimbo's involvement, since apparently it is his support (perceived or real) of her that has allowed Z to feel enabled to continue the behavior? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment at my talkpage. I know that it is a rather unfashionable mindset, but I think ArbCom works very well in circumstances such as these. It allows all participants access to each others viewpoints and interpretations of events - without drama and interruption - which can be a very salutary experience. It is also the only authority august enough (outside possibly of Jimbo) to have its decisions properly considered by all participants. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, is there a policy that states your allowed to ignore other editors completely even if it affects the overall good of a certain article. I got into an agrument with TheHYPO and he refuses to talk to me, I apologize to him and try to make amends and he still refuses. I need to be able to talk with him regarding the article on the band Barenaked Ladies as I would like to get the article nominated for good article status. Writer1400 ( talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You said, "The section I deleted did not belong on this talk page. Article talk pages are not the proper venue to leave warnings. If you have an issue about improper use of requests for checkuser, please file a report at the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Thank you." If it happens again, that's what I will do and I hope you will support me. The editor is using RFCU and WP:ANI in a campaign to own the article. Neutral Good ( talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am happy to answer your questions, no problem:
1. Do you consider yourself to be an activist on behalf of people with Aspergers?
Yes and no, I certainly wasn't until this year, and I will not be again ASAP, simply because I abhor the "activism experience" in general. My involvement relates to one specific issue that I am happy to explain to you by email but not "on-wiki".
2. Have you ever recruited other people who share your point of view to edit Wikipedia, specifically Asperger syndrome and any related articles?
Again, that is quite a tricky question, for me but in the answer you may come to understand AS a little better, at any rate as it applies to me. I have asked other people to contribute to the Asperger Syndrome article during this year, and I am sure that is no secret, simply because the deterioration in the neutrality of the article absolutely terrifies me on account of it's position on Google and the influence it has on people's thinking, and the way people with AS are perceived and treated as a result.
I asked them to contribute without even checking whether they shared "my point of view" (I don't think I have a very fully formed one) or not, because I feel that the deterioration in the neutrality of the article is subjective in origin, and, as a result, ANY objective opinion (including, for example, your own, if you wished to look into it) would serve to balance that. I would even have been happy with a reversion to the more balanced and objective 2006 FA. For me, in many ways, concepts like partiality and prejudice (even in my favor) are bad jokes that I don't really get. I am only interested in understanding and communicating objective reality, not in who's point of view trumps who's, if you can understand that? "Which team wins" is meaningless to me as long as the facts are valid.
However, while I did ask people to contribute, I don't think I actually succeeded in "recruiting" any, unless you know differently? :o)
Incidentally I never really DID edit the Asperger syndrome articles except to weigh in with consensus occasionally...believe it or not I feel too subjectively about AS to define it effectively in any capacity, and actually used a cut down version of the 2006 article to define AS for a national level submission here. I feel safer with the accuracy of an article into which many different people have put their perceptions, the are less likely to be errors and bias.
I have also been known to "buttonhole" any low flying shrink with an account here for comments on psych articles. Does that count?
3. Do you operate a website about Asperger syndrome?
Only since the summer and only as a formality related to a specific issue here. I have a degree of technical control over a couple of others too, but that's mostly because nobody else can be bothered, you, know the way. I think you will find that I have not made any secret of this and stated on the AS talk pages in August or September (I'll see if I can find the diff, I was looking at it yesterday) that with great regret the neutrality of the article had deteriorated to the point where bI had to de-link it as a definition on those sites. I think you will find that I have never dropped a link to any website I owned or had control of on-Wiki, if you know differently please show me because I will be far more disgusted with me for doing that than anyone else ever will be.
Always feel free to ask any questions, as long as I am free to answer them.
Incidentally, I hope you won't mind terribly if I get justice too? But whether you believe it or not I really do deserve it.
-- Zeraeph ( talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? -- Zeraeph ( talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at my new comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which are due to User talk:Lawrence Cohen#A question for you. Is this ban evasion and a range block situation? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think it has to go there FIRST? To me that is a bit extreme. What are the disruptive editing practices you see? The sockpuppets seem to be handled. If they really were sockpuppets, which I think is debatable but probable. Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but does not past the smell test. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:
1) How did this come to your attention?
and
2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.
Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I just received a harassing comment on my user talk page from the same user who keeps reverting edits in Middletown, Connecticut. What should I do? (besides delete it?) -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much :) You may also want to take a look at 159.247.3.210, as it has also been a source of attacks from this user. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just received another harassing post to my talk page by same user under 129.133.124.203. Sorry this has turned into such a nighmare. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article Middletown, Connecticut , by 129.133.124.203 -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, El_C 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for 129.133.124.199 ( talk · contribs) due to his conduct at Middletown, Connecticut, I thought you might be interested in this post which would appear to be the same person evading the block. It is to be noted that rather than revert warring, he's discussing matters on the talk page. Of course the judgement call on what to do with him is all yours, oh mop laden one! :-) Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Take that back; looks like it was an actual contribution to the talk page. Sorry, it's getting later here; I should probably bow out for now. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. [19] Risker ( talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my disputes with Writer1400 have lead to any drama being forced upon you; Every minor disagreement with him have resulted in a major blowup of drama, and I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle of it. TheHYPO ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind thoughts. Its ok if we do not always agree, but we do not have to be disagreeable! I hope I am not. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, could you have a look at this [20]. I'm being accused of personally attacking User:Blackworm. I am disengaging awaiting a review of my actions - would you mind taking a look-- Cailil talk 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the above is here at WP:AN. I'm having a look at the below now-- Cailil talk 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Since this is the original issue being rehashed by Blackworm, could you have a look at his post to my user-space here - if you would prefer I could ask a different sysop to overview (again), in case you are over worked or wish to recuse yourself-- Cailil talk 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I contacted Guy about it. He's busy so he may not be able to deal with it either, but it's not that urgent, it can wait till tomorrow or later-- Cailil talk 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to social constructionism, the belief that culture is the only influence upon human action. There is no feminist, that I know of, who objects to this belief. Sociobiologists, meanwhile, believe that biology influences behavior. These are foundational tenets of their belief systems, their adherents are the most strongly opinionated, and this diametric conflict is responsible for most of the edit wars on the Rape page. MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The pages Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape are proof that the statement is objective, germane, and neutral. I am not adding anything to Wikipedia that is not already there. If you still believe otherwise, please elaborate. MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
May I have your permission to copy the commments on my talk page to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ Vanished user#Community input on the findings of fact]]? I would make clear where they came from, and invite further discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is one I watch.
I would reverse this but given our recent interchange, I would expect you to consider it a sort of aggressive attack. So instead I will bring it to your attention.
I do not consider this removal to be a good thing. It did not look like advertising to me and it might be helpful to beekeepers doing research on how to affect this parasite. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I would just like to say that the strong language (no, not swearing this time - passionate but still civil) that I used in my response to your comment is not directed at you but "the gallery". I want to be able to defend my reputation, and striking through will allow the accusations to be still seen. I'm late to bed as it is, so my considered reply to Mattisse will have to wait a little while. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[[:Image:Harvard poster.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Harvard fans holding up Yale's "We Suck" placards, 2004. ]]
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou
This entire mess just went from annoying and dumb to surreal. Read: [21]
I really would like to see a very ride review of this via AN or ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to post this to AN or ANI please do so, otherwise I will, and I would prefer not to, as I'm a touch steamed right now. From that page:
Given that they 'orally' decided to take up the waterboarding page, I smell major meatpuppetry and an answer in part to why this page has been a disruptive fiasco. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some mutual friends Wonder if you know? Igor Berger ( talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, so that was unexpected. El_C 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Have a look why? thx Igor Berger ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice. I'll definitely follow it, if there is no objection to it. I'd also like to say sorry for declining the coaching so early after the last RFA, I ultimately ended being coached by Rlevse, but I appreciated your thought nevertheless. Best regards, Rudget . 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Blue Tie asked, "Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it."
You relied, "Yes."
I reply, "No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the 'other side' while ignoring the same conduct by 'your side.' That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point."
Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help in the McGill University matter, and with trying to keep Editorhwaller from further disrupting wikipedia. Thanks for your attention in the matter. Snowfire51 ( talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And now there seems to be a second sock or meat. I think you may have to semi-protect the Talk pages for McGill, Snowfire and me. Thanks. I see you seem to be on top of this. Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik• talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. As you can no doubt understand, I have been attempting to communicate in a rational, civil manner with the editor in question for more than 2 months, but he seems completely oblivious to the non-negotiable need for compliance with even such simple policies as WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE - which is extremely aggravating. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's unusual that Gene Poole said this at 17:53 when I changed the article back at 18:00. This would mean that he would have predicted the change from the discussion page, but it makes sense to write why you think the change should happen rather than just changing the page without a comment. I never actually said that I would change the edit back, so obviously he wants the dispute to happen. I didn't delete the sources, and since Gene Poole is so concerned about reporting what sources say, I used his website as a source for Atlantium. I think Gene Poole just wants to continue the dispute, he questions whether the convention will actually become official and he is being completely unreasonable. If he does not want to stop the dispute then he is an uncooperative editor. He spends more time arguing and continuing the dispute than editing. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see why you suggest using restrictions - but at the moment I don't think they are needed, if the dispute resolution fails then yes, but so far it seems to be working. I will add sources even without a restriction. Gene Poole isn't just an officer, he is the emperor - so he probably knows the most about the Empire of Atlantium. Thanks for the request, I think it is useful - but it will be more effective if the dispute resolution fails. Let's see how this dispute resolution ends first. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have written on Gene Poole's discussion page about the convention, I think this can end the dispute entirely, and stop a lot of future disputes. If you need any further information, see the Wikiproject's discussion page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that
which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A. You mention free speech on your user page. B. On ANI, Profg says "you will be slammed". If true, this should be an eyeopener that WP slams people. He said " Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it". He didn't say to vandalize it. C. According to WP:CANVASS, "to block the user(s) only if they continue". I see no warning notice on his user page.
Therefore, you have improperly blocked this man. You should unblock him and follow the proper procedure. If he is a jerk, he will violate the procedure and then you can block him. Do not be a jerk just because he is a jerk.
By doing what you did, you slammed him just like he predicted. You became the bad guy and he became the victim. Do the right thing and unblock him for now. Onequestion ( talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your help is highly appreciated. Igor Berger ( talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, your post to the arbcom enforcement board made me wonder about backing assertions of bad behavior. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Diffs for assertions about behavior? Anynobody 08:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you J. Igor Berger ( talk) 09:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a second, I'd like to request semi-protection for the Phil Luckett article. He's a ref who made a questionable call in the NFL playoff game today, and he's drawing heavy random IP vandalism for stuff that can't be properly sourced until after the game. I made an oficial request, but I thought I'd see if you were around to maybe cut this off early. Thanks! Snowfire51 ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you do not want to apply the remedy to AN yourself due to previous involvement (although I do not think that should be a concern in your case) but if you do not want to then you may want to post something on AN/I (if you have not already - I did not check) as WP:AE gets scant attention. Thanks. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[Excitedly] I've got new messages?(!) [[Dissapointedpointed-pointed<ly] Ughh! :( El_C 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I don't want to fight you. We are on the same side, the Wikipedia side.
You show honour by not reverting comments like some admins do. For this, a star for you. (*). Let's just let the checkuser request take its course, whether it's run or not.
If I were you, I would have reworded the request much differently. I would have said all these 3 users are not improperly acting like socks of each other so no checkuser is requested between these. However, a checkuser of Profg to each of them is requested to show they are not Profg.
If you are worried about meat, none of them are voting together. Maybe they are admin who don't want to publically support Profg but are against full community ban. Or maybe someone wants to make a suggestion on the talk page but given the hostility of the subject doesn't want to be stalked or attacked.
Just some thoughts. Republic of One ( talk) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I removed my other RFCU comment. That's a 50% reduction. I'll leave my other one there or it will look like admin intimidation of an editor. Let's not start a fight, ok? Objection noted, you responded. I withdrew 1 of 2 comments. Republic of One ( talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As one admin to another, I try to give great deference to another admin's judgement and actions. Your RFCU could have been handled much better without potential damage to WP.
The results are in. Your accusation was wrong. There was a comment that the RFCU was not a category F. I tend to agree. Furthermore, all 3 listed people were different. However, one person who makes good contributions (Congalese fufu), including current work on 2 articles to bring them to featured article status, has been outed. It is very possible that this editor will cease editing because of this. If this happens, Wikipedia would have been harmed because of actions that you started. All of our actions have consequences. We admins are always pointing out vandalism but our actions can have the same long term effect as the vandals if we are not careful.
I told the checkuser that I am willing to discuss privately with productive edits who have an alternate account if this can improve their behavior. You could have done this and not chase away an editor. Walton One once made a similar comment. You see, my main goal is WP improvement. Archtransit ( talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice of violation of official Wikipedia policy
By your own admission ("a one minute block to note this case in their log" as noted here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFCU#Onequestion), you have violated official Wikipedia policy stated in this passage
[22] . It gives me no pleasure to block another admin. However, this will be evidence that can be cited to the skeptical that WP has a cabal that protects its own. This block is done to prevent further damage to WP by preventing your edits. I encourage you to reflect on this situation and how your good intentions resulted in violation of official Wikipedia policy as well as probable damage to WP in terms of other's improving the encyclopedia.
Your term of blockage w ill be 12 hours, calculated as less than half of the 31 hours normally given for vandalism. Please accept this as a learning experience and not plan retaliation. Archtransit ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Original block clearly stated that blocking as to prevent damage to WP by preventing further violations of official WP policy. Despite being unblocked, Jehochman is encouraged to carefully follow WP policy in the future. Archtransit ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. How exactly was Congolese fufu "outed"? Lawrence Cohen 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you reduced the block of Congolese fufu so much that it no longer was really a block. You weren't intending to stop them editing for 1 minute, you were intending to put an entry in their block log. I can see that your intention was generosity, but I think the option you chose was one not really open to you. That said it wasn't a very serious breach of the blocking policy and some might well invoke WP:IAR to defend it. Certainly a block was not the right response if someone disagreed with your action. That said, could everyone please bear in mins that the admin who blocked Jehochman is very new to the job - and that ideally this should be treated as a learning experience rather than an opportunity to lynch someone. WjB scribe 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A barnstar is being made. It will commend Jehochman from turning anger (threats to prolong the matter into dispute resolution) into presumed calm. These turning points are what make barnstars meaningful, not just patting friends on the back. Archtransit ( talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You might recall User:Lulu Margarida was blocked for a week in November for their disruptive behavior, incivility, and intimidation attempts at the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article. The block expired, but they did no more editing after that. However, today apparently Lulu has decided to return. For their first edit, they left a note on my talk page with the heading of "Hello Freak." [24]. So far that is all they have done, but I'm mildly concerned that this is the first action they take up on deciding to return to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be a good sign that they intend to not repeat their past incivilities. I don't know if any action is warranted now, but I thought it would be good for an admin to be alerted so hopefully someone keeps an eye on him. Collectonian ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
..for being gracious and reasonable, even when blocked. If everyone was like that, the drama quotient around here would go way down. Friday (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, even though I disagreed with you on whether it was resolved until Archtransit actually acknowledged an error :-P Avruch talk 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI Avruch talk 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Well done on finding that account. Still trying to assimilate what it all means. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Comments on Mateohoffman for my thoughts so far. Will you be taking this to the proposed decision talk page? I suggest you do at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Igorberger tells me he started this article on your say-so and it got CSD'd. You're the resident expert on SEO. Follow up with the fellow, please. Durova Charge! 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Phoenix-wiki, I believe is not an admin, made the change. I am shocked that a non-admin would think they he or she has the right to change the title of any arbitration request. But User:Phoenix-wiki did proof right here! Do you supposed that this is the kind of behavior I've been dealing with on the Asian fetish article? Now, I ask you why the hell are personal attacks on me using external links going unpunished on wikipedia? Just look at the Asian fetish article the involved parties are having a field day with the article and I don't have a clue? Since it looks like you are an admin, I challenge you to do the right thing and punish those who obviously personally attacked me. Tkguy ( talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
You seem to know every caveat of WikiPedia. I am proud to learn from you. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your hard work towards the Cause! Igor Berger ( talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
That page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources...-- Damifb ( talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to say a special thank you to you aswell, your unfailing support over this and my last RFA restored my faith in Wikipedia back in October, and I'm glad I can work with you in areas that I may not have done previously. Thank you once again.
Sorry if I seems a bit bitey towards Igor, but his comments just really struck me as having a bit of a conflict of interest, if not some ownership issues with regards to his article. Also, some of his threats have been a bit out of line, threating to go to RFC and getting other admins involved, along with his original threat to canvas other users for the AfD. I understand English isn't Igor's main language, but all of it together just comes off a bit harshly. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Since your current proposal is limited to instances of confirmed sockpuppetry, I suggest instead you seek a change at Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging to make unauthorized removal of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet templates a blockable policy violation. That would have two advantages:
Think of what happened to Orderinchaos. [27] We want to minimize instances of that, not increase them. If he hadn't already been a known administrator that could have been a scarlet letter. Durova Charge! 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice before I put my foot in my mouth again. There is no score to settle or blocking quota that I want to fill. I think I'll go back to my previously undone tasks with the testing of the tools in a slower, controlled manner. The Fairchild Dornier 728 was an article that I was working on until recently. Archtransit ( talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am getting tired reverting his corretions and links. Igor Berger ( talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry on me at the AN/I has disappeared.
Does that forebode something worse? If not, what does it indicate?
Stone put to sky ( talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sincerely -- Stone put to sky ( talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny that you answered for Ryulong. Are you following him or me? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Codyfinke is such an odd user. Why would someone do that? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see your name is listed here. I've taken a look here and left comments, as well as on WP:AN. The whole process of coaching seems to be stalled. I know we've had our differences in the past, but you strike me as being an extremely capable mentor, even though I'm aware you're busy elsewhere. Now, I'm fairly new (<6 months), but I am committed to WP and have an edit record of which I'm, well, perhaps proud is not the right word, but hopefully confident: User:Rodhullandemu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I am fully aware that I've made mistakes, and am prepared to admit them; in fact in an RfAa, I'd do it up front and admit to inexperience and frustration. If you don't feel you can spare the time to help me, I will understand that fully; it would be useful, however, if you could give me at least an informal indication of where I could improve. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: RfA: Thanks for your message. I am having great difficulty dealing with this at present, because it would be an awesome responsibility to take on, even if I pass the community test. I would be forever looking at my back, which I suppose is no bad thing for an admin, in that being given a mop & bucket is really no great accolade. However, if I have a mission, it's to protect and improve the encyclopedia. Knowledge is important to me, and if I can make a difference, the additional responsibility, although daunting, would be worth the effort I would be prepared to take. Thanks for your confidence. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You said here that there's no evidence to suggest an alliance. The real situation is that evidence exists to both support and oppose the existence of the alliance, which is why I'm undecided about the affair. What is your opinion of the supporting evidence? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen. It is most appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I followed your advice when building Andy Beard and did it as WP:BLP. Please take a look at it. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Talk:Andy Beard ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. I figure Talk: shouldn't redirect to User talk:... It just doesn't seem appropriate. Tuvok T @ lk/ Improve 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What I see is a huge rush to ban the guy. Why? Why not some deliberation? I never said "this guy should not be banned".
Look what other's wrote:
I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B
…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)
Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)
I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan
All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan
Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan
A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX
I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by
Orderinchaos
17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - very selective quote which omits context
based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B
I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B
Thanks for uploading Image:Roper-Industries.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I don't really understand why you've shifted your position on this article, but I think that your actions, while well-intentioned, are aiding a bunch of POV-pushers. I have formed a negative opinion of Neutral Good simply from his tendentiousness at Talk:Waterboarding, as well as my suspicion that he's a sockpuppet of User:Bryan from Palatine, but I've participated in discussions with Blue Tie before at Talk:Global warming where he's used the same type of tactics he's using at waterboarding. Please read the sections about Naomi Oreskes' article at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_21#There_is_something_wrong_with_the_Oreskies_cite and see if you think this is an editor who's consistent about the OR policy. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a suggestion for a compromise / learning too on Archtransit's talk page. As you have been personally affected by this situation, your input would be more than welcome. If you'd rather not comment / get involved, that's fine too.
Starting 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at
IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to
Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--
Cailil
talk
21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence | |
I, Folic Acid, award you, Jehochman, this Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st class) for your outstanding conduct to date as an admin (and a new one, at that). |
Thank you! - Jehochman Talk 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
El C, when you deleted that noticeboard (how often do you get to delete one of those?), you left the talk page. Was that your intention, or unintention? - Jehochman Talk 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jonathan, dropping you a line so you know it's me (Li) with this id. Going work on my profile page this weekend after catching up on the stuff I missed out on at the beginning of the week. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyspinner ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
WP:DE/N, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
WP:DE/N is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
WP:DE/N, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.
CSDWarnBot
15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that you've recently joined the Admin club, I hope you because a successful one. I really appreciate the compliment you left on my talk page. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when is it inline with the blocking policy to block someone for being dead? -- John Reaves 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dude, to be honest, I didn't know it was a dispute or there was a problem (or would be). I went to the store and come back and I have created a major "thing" on ANI. Something I didn't intend to do. I have no stake in the Hal Lindsey article, none. I haven't actually watched the guy's show, only seen TBN for a split second when flipping through the channels, I really have no stake there. I was only attempted to remove edits that could be in violation of the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule (not sure what the exact rule is). If I messed up, then I do greatly apologize. I know radio stations and User:Bee Cliff River Slob came over into the radio station relm with the same cruft and I reverted there and thought doing some cleanup for the other pages he hit would be nice too, hence my edits. Again, if I stepped on some toes in my cleanup, I do apologize. I have been here a year, but I am still learning all the rules and whatnot. Again, I am sorry. Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
For the reasons given here, I've taken the unusual step of reversing your indefinite block of Sadi Carnot. Please remember that indefinite blocks of established users by single admins are virtually never justified. Blocks are meant to be preventive, and the length of your block is obviously excessive in relation to the problem that needs to be solved. If you want a ban, take the matter to ArbCom, but I doubt very much that they will issue a ban in such a case. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed considering either an RFC or an ArbCom against your original block, as I believe that your approach to blocking is detrimental to the project. In the meantime, may I request that you remove the maintenance tags that you have added to articles to which Sadi Carnot has contributed. Your actions in doing so have greatly increased the amount of work for other editors in cheching these articles. If you are worried about the veracity of their content, please feel free to compile a list and to post it at WikiProject Chemistry, where it will get expert attention. Do not forget that there are over 28,000 articles related to chemistry on Wikipedia, so you tags will be gloriously ignored unless we actually know where they are. Given your other comments on this case, you may consider this a warning against disruption of Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capture-bonding? Thanks very much. Keith Henson 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning here is less for the sake of SC than it is for the sake of PC62. PC62 was very upset about this, not because he agrees with SC's crackpottery (quite the opposite), but because a) SC has been useful on historical articles, b) SC wasn't warned first (which is true), and in general c) he (PC62) felt it was such a witch-hunt atmosphere he was going to resign his op bit over this, and possibly even take it to arbcom on a point of principle.
I think that would be a terrible waste of everyone's time and effort, and that my solution is an improvement. DS 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keith Henson 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The organization mentioned in this new page: Link Building Association .? -- Versa geek 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you can help? I understand that administrators can view deleted information. If you find time, could you please tell me:
Feel free to edit my comment to add answers. I quite understand you may be busy or otherwise unable to answer my questions so please feel no obligation at all. Thanks ~ TreeKittens 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your answers:
Cheers - Jehochman Talk 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn
I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.
I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400
I am Jehochman on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Jehochman. Thanks. --- Jehochman Talk 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to the idea of Physchim62 as a mentor to Sadi Carnot. I don't believe he has the will or desire to carefully cross-check every obscure reference that Sadi comes up with, because I believe that Physchim62 has not come to grips with Sadi Carnot as a fraud. Kww 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to mess with your userpage, (to fix the red link) but wanted to let you know I took the stub we have and expanded on it a bit and sourced it a bit(and will be working on it a bit more if I can find some media on it), I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and make sure all looks well, (sadly I am fairly insecure in my writing abilities, most of my work has been CE/spelling corrections.) Thanks for your time. Dureo 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I'm impressed by your suprising acts of civilry and good faith toward Matt57, dispite the conflicts, so I award you this barnstar. Yahel Guhan 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the funny note and the barnstar; probably only you and I "get it". I was tempted to say something funny on your RfA, but was afraid it might backfire since, well, my writing sucks and it probably wouldn't come out funny.
The problems with SC are deep and long-standing; being name "worst" by him could be considered an honor (I suppose you'll put that forward as evidence in the ArbCom case as an example of his behavior?). I support your efforts wrt the ban, but this brings to me to another issue. To me, the most important issue. My prose isn't particularly eloquent or succinct, so I ask you to bear with me and understand what I'm trying to convey.
I have typed and deleted and re-typed and re-deleted a response to the change you made to the banning policy, and decided instead to discuss it first with you. It's never wise to base policy on one case, no matter how strong it is, and not every case is like Sadi Carnot. His is not the only case before ArbCom right now involving the need to clarify the ban policy, and I'm afraid your change will introduce a worse kind of abuse than the abuse you seek to correct. Did you follow the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard and the types of problems that led to its deletion? There are worse evils than "reduc(ing) Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop" and that is elevating bans to the level of the strongest abusers and votes by popularity contests. Recent abuse at the Community Sanction Noticeboard led to its deletion and confusion about the ban policy. Editors were site banned based on "votes", not discussion, and in spite of several editors willing to unblock. That kind of abuse, IMO, does far more damage to the longterm health of Wikipedia because it causes productive editors to leave in disgust. After viewing multiple instances of abusive bans or attempted bans, I almost quit editing Wiki. The community can deal with the SCs, but more harm is done when productive, hard-working, well meaning editors tire of witnessing abuse and leave. Discussion, not votes, is the way to go, and when that fails, ArbCom is the next step.
IMO, ban discussions should proceed as this one did: [2]. I hope you'll read it carefully as it frames my basis for how I view sitebans and the discussion of them; the discussion proceeded over at least four days, and I was able to check in daily, even while on vacation, before decisions were made. Although I was (and remain, both on- and off-Wiki) the victim of an extreme attack and harassment that undermines Wiki and my editing, in the face of overwhelming consensus that the editor should "not only be off Wikipedia forever, but probably in jail or a mental institution as well", one admin argued that mentoring would be a better approach. He was not gullible; he was right. Had this editor been banned, the harassment I deal with would only be worse. It is up to me now, if I'm tired of the harassment, to bring it before ArbCom; Wiki treated every editor as fairly as possible. And even though I remain under attack, I would much rather live with the harassment than to accede to a system that allows for any group to force any editor off of Wiki permanently, because THAT is more dangerous in the longrun because it alienates and embitters good editors.
I fear that the changes you made to the banning policy will solve one problem (the SCs and Zs) at the expense of opening the door to a much larger problem of systemic abuse by groups of editors promoting agendas. I guess I prefer gullible to the more insidious harm that comes from the other kinds of abuse I've witnessed on Wiki. I really oppose that change in wording to the ban policy, and I strongly encourage you to consider that there are other sides of that issue and to investigate the issues I mention. I hope I've got some credibility with you, so that you'll work to understand the broader issues, beyond one bad editor here and there, that concern me. As you can see, your change to the banning policy would have made my life simpler; my harasser would have been banned by overwhelming consensus against only one admin advocating for mentoring. A ban wouldn't have been the best outcome at that time; admin abuse chases off more good editors and does more long-term harm to the Project than the SCs and Zs, who can be dealt with by other means. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If a user might need to be banned, the blocking admin can place a one month block. At the same time, they initiate a ban discussion at WP:AN. While that discussion is ongoing, the block must remain in place, unless overturned by Arbcom. Once the discussion at WP:AN reaches a consensus to ban, topic ban, or unblock with or without conditions, the original block is refactored accordingly. If the discussion leads to no consensus, the case is referred to Arbcom.
Hey, did I start this? :-) I found that "users" subpage by Sadi Carnot and pointed it out at
WP:RFARB. Another note I left led to Jehochman leaving me a note, and I came here and saw that Sandy was here, and went to Sandy's talk page and saw that the Users page had been pointed out. I should have thought of the barnstar myself... Anyway, Jehochman responded to my concern that AN and ANI are not really suited for the type of discussion that took place about Sadi Carnot (AfD tends to be more forthright about BS in articles), but I like the suggestion give above. I never really followed CSN, though I caught the tail-end of the MfD. I have noticed longer and more disruptive discussions on ANI since CSN was shut down. I always thought ANI was for quick stuff, and AN for the longer stuff, so maybe AN is a suitable place for discussions. I wonder if the shorter discussions there will suffer though. Whenever noticeboards are shut down, there is a period of adjustment as different communities clustering around various noticeboards adjust to accommodate 'refugees' from the closed down noticeboard. What might help is better management of the noticeboards, with off-topic stuff directed to the right noticeboard. Anyway, hopefully things will work out.
Carcharoth
20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be more to all of this than meets the eye, and I must not be privy to something, because it's disconcertingly confusing to watch all that is unraveling with the various blocking and banning situations while the policy page remains strangely quiet (seems it's only you and I and a few others talking there, so I have to guess the real conversation is happening elsewhere). Since I'm not even an admin, I 'spose I have no business opining, but I don't want to be part of a Project that is governed by mob rule, even in the cases where we may ultimately be right (such as I believe is the case for SC). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, where is your consensus for your changes to WP:BAN? After my comments about your handling of the Sadi Carnot case (you have still to provide the list of pages which you tagged), I must formally warning you against disrupting Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
Might I remind you that this was not a sysop action. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
With
this edit, you are returning to your habits of attacking users for their beliefs rather than their actions. You have obviously learnt nothing from this fiasco, and I can only hope that ArbCom gives you the cluestick beatingvery firm explanation as to why you have consistently ignored good faith and any arguments which run counter to your own, made personal attacks on users and have disrupted Wikipedia by your hysteria that you deserve. You are well aware of what my real response to the feeling of having to implement such obviously ill-discussed and ill-argumented bans was—I asked to resign as an administrator and only agreed not to so that I could participate in a soluton to this problem. You are crying for rights which you have systematically refused other participants in this case, myself included. I will stop myself from putting into words my other opinions of your behavior.
Physchim62
(talk)
12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly on your side, but I can tell you that your reaction to Physchim62's asininity is not helping your cause. An onlooker is going to think of you as a whiner. Kww 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I have no issues with the courtesy blanking, now that the issue is apparently resolved, and since he only deleted comments that I had struck-through anyway. There's always the historical record if ever needed. Thanks again! Arakunem Talk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel( Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you please try to figure out what Keith is talking about on Talk:Capture bonding#I agree? I am utterly unable to see the difference between the term used in abnormal and evolutionary psychology. Publicola 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no one has bothered me usually, thanks for asking. I would however, without naming them, have faced a few editors who've come to me and tried to tell me to stay away from certain articles. Maybe you know who they are but that doesnt matter; I'll try to keep it impartial. If there's no administrative official consensus on me working on a certain article, then they have no right to tell me to stay away from those articles. They should be warned in fact, not to own an article like this. An article is an article, its public. Obviously that was a violation of WP:OWN. If I violate any policies on articles e.g. consistently removing sourced material, then I can be warned for that. Thats perfectly ok. I think that was the only case where I got bothered a lot. I will say that one characteristic of disruptive users is that they are unable to see things other than from a personal-issue point of view i.e. - well you know what I mean. "You're editing this article because you want to attack me" - well thats not true. People should not read more into what is just there. I'm editing it because I want to make sure it complies with the site's standards. In any case though, disruptive users dont win in the end, without doubt. Thats it, I havent faced any other disruptive editors to complain about. I've also in my opinion been blocked too strongly and if there's anything such as disruptive adminship, maybe thats it. I got a month's long block for what. That was too long, for nothing. Thats it. Thats all the disruptive activity that I've faced and yes I'll call it disruptive because it was unfair. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Elonka correctly tagged the article for cleanup and placed a prominent reminder on the talk page as talk page discipline has been poor there. There has been no improvement in 2 weeks, so I added a reminder to the talk page, particularly to the main contributor Paul McGowan some of whose comments are a little inappropriate e.g. "...debasing the cr*p" and and who I think caused you to tag the article for WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? I have left a similar note on Elonka's talk page -- Sannhet 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my request, I see your suggestion and appreciate the idea. Would you be willing to be my "admin coach"? Rudget Contributions 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Posting here to avoid sidetracking Physchim's talk page. I agree that you have been reasonable and I don't see any "witch hunting" in your actions (I do see it in some other people's, though). I also acknowledge that you considered the situation for months, and not only for two hours. I don't have the slightest doubt of your good faith. In fact, I only have two complaints: 1) that you only gave two hours for people to post objections before blocking. Had you been more patient, consensus would have been clearer, Physchim62 might have been more reluctant to revert, and a lot of trouble might have been avoided. 2) That Sadi Carnot had no clear and unambiguous warning. I think that all reduces to a philosophical difference of opinion; I think you preferred to take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach (you said something like "I'll unblock him if he asks"), while I would have preferred a "warn first, shoot later" approach. -- Itub 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I would also be interested in getting your opinion regarding including some of the gory mosque massacre photos [5] as well. I have moved the images in question to the talk page for discussion. Thanks, Sinhala freedom 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi can you either complete or remove the half comment at the bottom of this? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
hi sir. I need your help for this discussion in my talk page. I realy don`t know we must have difinition word in the first word of articles or no?! then you have time if I`ll need any help ask from you? regards,-- Gordafarid 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I feel like constantly reverting this person is almost futile, but at the same time I know their edits are ridiculous. I am reverting their edits one more time, but I don't plan on touching it again. I am fairly new to editing articles on wikipedia, so what exactly should we do about this? HebrewHammerTime 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I just left the same message for User:Durova. Just FYI.
I thought that this might be of interest for you. I am honestly getting tired of this sh**. WP:COI is a mess and used for everything against anybody. WP:COIN gets then slammed with all this and the end result are many upset editors and in too many cases ex-editors who just leave instead of coping with this BS. Cheers and happy reading.
-- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I hope things are going well for you. I'm dropping you a note because of repeated soapboxing by User:Caesarjbsquitti at talk feminism. I made an ANI post last night with diffs here. This behaviour from Caesarjbsquitti is disruptive and is a recurrence of the same from almost a year ago. I'd much obligied if you'd have a quick look. This user has not been template warned (as they are an experienced user) but cite policy has been pointed out to them 5 times (by 3 editors) in less than a week-- Cailil talk 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi stranger. A belated congratulations on the adminship! I had a question, and you've always been a good judge of this sort of thing for me previously. I was looking at this content dispute here, and an interesting question came up. If x number of sources say that something is true, but no reliable sources exist to counter that statement, is it safe to state that the something is true? It's an interesting question. We can't (as I understand it) put up counter-views without sourcing, and even when WP:FRINGE comes into play, even wacky theories, ideas, and purported facts need sourcing.
So, in short: if 10 reliable sources state a fact, but no reliable sources exist to counter that fact, can Example article state that "This is this."[1][2][etc.] until a valid counter-source arises? This is also assuming it is not a BLP of course. My question is specific to the Waterboarding article, after someone there raised this very question. I'm also very curious in general for understanding NPOV and verifiability's finer points, given that a handful of the articles I'm helping on now are borderline possible contentious territory. • Lawrence Cohen 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat also. I did it with Twinkle, not sure if that's the best way to do it. • Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your question on my talk page. User_talk:Nick_Y.#Optional_question.-- Nick Y. 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you are well. Please note the activities and claimed identity of User:Linshukun. He seems to have resumed serious editing as of 24 October. I have discussed his apparent relationship with Thims at the Gladyshev afd as well as the forum posts allegedly written by him and answered by Jimbo. There is more. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain it all satisfactorily. This is complicated. As I have said before - we were given these clues deliberately so we should be cautious when interpreting them. I will try to post a more comprehensive comment when I can. Best regards -- TreeKittens 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm impressed with the solidity of the GRB article and its children. The material covers the observational facts well and includes the broad consensus on the modelling. Well sourced indeed. I will keep an eye out for this article. Let's hope it will achieve featured status :) Regards, 82.72.87.196 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Need 2nd eye here, you said you'd help. I am convinced the new account is a sock of netmonger and should be blocked, including netmonger, what do you think? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sockpuppet. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, see the page. Our first of the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My patience with you has run out. This edit is entirely inappropriate, as are many of your comments on the arbitration page. As such, I have requested to the Committee that you be banned for an interim period from editing Wikipedia, except for this page and for the pages of the arbitration. This does not affect my belief that you acted in good faith in blocking Sadi Carnot, however wrong I feel that that decision was. I simply believe that your judgement is such that you should not have the power to use administrative tools. It is your own actions which have lead me to this, dispite the fact the we have been able to co-operate on other dispute resolution. The matter is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.
Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced. Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Good morning Jehochman - I hope I can ask a favor of you. I came across this image today, and it seems to me to be a violation of copyright, or at least, a misrepresentation of who the owner of the copyright actually is. It's virtually the same as this well-established image, just with a bit of color and the Chinese characters edited out. I have to confess that I'm not very familiar with the procedures for questioning the copyright of an image, and my brief search for answers didn't yield much fruit. Would you mind having a look, and take whatever action you think necessary? And, if you'd be so kind, could you point me in the right direction of the proper procedures for this sort of thing, so I don't have to bug you in the future? Many thanks Folic_Acid | talk 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
{{copyvio|http://www.nndb.com/people/974/000086716/cks-sm.jpg}}Best regards, - Jehochman Talk 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to renumber the Proposed findings of Fact, because there are two number 14s. Could you protect the workshop page for a couple of minutes and do this before the problem gets any greater? Thanks in advance. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Violation of 1RR 1st, 2nd, 3rd and violation of WP:NPA calls in the edit summary [(rv sock edits) in revert three. Thanks Taprobanus 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You may not be aware of further discussions here and here. As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You wiped mine and Durova's comments under "Phsychim62 refused to abide by the consensus". You wiped yours, too. I restored mine and Durova's, but if yours was an accident, you might want to put it back as well. Kww 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, how are you? I leave this message because of your "faith in the system", and because I have recently opened a policy RFC. I share your faith in the wikiprocess and value your opinions. Peace and good days! Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman. First, I would like to thank you for your help with the Sri Lankan issues. Your work is much appreciated. Can you also comment on the following issue here please. Thanks Watchdogb 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching MindGuerilla. As you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of experience with sock-puppets, and what instilled my zero-tolerance attitude was good ol' SixString there. You didn't happen to catch the IP there, did you? Again, I appreciate you acting quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
ExampleRFCxxx|Talk: Wheel war}}
DMcMPO11AAUK/
Talk/
Contribs
09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
extra note - look at the signature, did you use 4 tildes or 5? DMcMPO11AAUK/ Talk/ Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Jehochman,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Any chance you could reinstate the block regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf? The sock-puppet activity has resumed unabated. Thanks. Myasuda 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regretfully, I'm no longer confident in your judgment as a sysop. Both myself and Dmcdevit have repeatedly requested for your to provide us with a concrete grounds for the block (diffs of recent misconduct). Will you be willing to, as a last resort, do so? Or is a formal investigation by the arbitration committee the only recourse to compel you? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While it might not be my place to contribute to the discussion here, I apologize if my handling as a first-timer made matters difficult for either of you. I don't hate anyone, and this wasn't a wtichhunt, at least, not for me. it was just my first time preparing trying to create a reply, and I wasn't anywhere near succinct (I was also concerned that too much brevity might be perceived as glibness). i have endeavored to be more so as I learn more about how this works. My apologies if any ineptitude on my part complicated the relationship between you two. That would indeed upset me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, received your note on my talk page, but not sure to which article you're referring. The only recent edits I've made for living persons are here, here, and here - all of which were simple typo corrections or removal of vandalism. In the future please include a reference to the article in question - otherwise it's difficult to learn from my mistakes. Thank you - Chewyrunt 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone else got it, which is ok under these circumstances, but thank you for asking me first! -- But| seriously| folks 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I've responded to your question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf. Thanks for asking! Myasuda 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
...For your help. Can you on my userpage explain my history please? KingPuppy 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
dear Jenochman, as an Admin,would be kind to have a look at the photo i posted of Alfred Rosenberg at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosenberg.jpg??i actually spent good time on this with the help of a friend of mine who's a lawyer.thank you much sir :) Grandia01 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the Dbachmann thread you closed. You said "ANI is for complaints, not investigations", but at the top of the page it says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"... :-) I also noticed that you said "Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints." That's Arbcom arbitrator/clerk language! :-) Carcharoth 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award | |
For your merits in bringing about the Sri Lanka dispute resolution, the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific award, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks. — Sebastian 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Please let me know whenever you need help. - Jehochman Talk 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me bringing our conversation that was happening on AN/I here - I think it's probably a more suited venue for now (feel free to cross post, or move back, or move to my talk at your discretion).
I think your idea of a central repository of community resolutions could be very powerful and useful - and perhaps not just in the area of editor's restrictions (which is indeed a sensible application). What would you think about somehow structuring content or policy discussions into it in some way? - You may have become aware that WP:NPA has returned to being a somewhat combative atmosphere, after a period of calm for a few weeks. Could this idea be applied there somehow? Just a thought at this stage.
Regardless, it's nice to meet you, best - Privatemusings 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was edit-conflicted with the archiving of the AN/I thread, so I just thought I'd post what I'd written here, since it responded mainly to you: That's a very good point; I've spent a lot of time recently looking for exactly why, where and what non-ArbCom restrictions have been placed on various editors. I urge you to propose something at the Village Pump.
Of course, I should point out that I having read the above discussion in its entirety and at one go, I can't see it being "supported by the consensus", but that is rendered moot by PM's suggestion.)"
Cheers! Relata refero 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your skill with chipmunks is unparalleled (yes, I know that isn't you, but for the sake of this compliment we will pretend it is). :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken Latitude group to deletion review here, if successful I would like to have the content from Latitude White (which you speedy deleted) restored so that it could be merged into the main article. [[ Guest9999 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, in regards to 24.19.33.82 ( talk · contribs), could you offer some input on what BLP violations you were alleging against that IP with this warning? This is in regards to the current ArbCom case. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Long comment by Privatemusings |
---|
Hi Jonathan (again),
I noticed this post of yours; An important question to ask, Privatemusings, is whether one's participation is helping the encyclopedia, or hurting it. I don't mean one's own opinion, no, I mean the consensus opinion of respectable Wikipedians. If an account is a net negative, sooner or later it will be blocked or deleted. If a person operating a set, or series, of accounts is a net negative, sooner or later that person will be banned. Policies and guidelines are written so we don't have to repeat ourselves, but they don't dictate what we do. One cannot point to rules and use them to justify a net negative. - Jehochman Talk 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) And it got me thinking (hopefully this isn't a bad thing!). My first thought was a bit defensive - to point out that according to your logic, the fact that I am unbanned currently reflects the fact that I am 'approved' by the community consensus (as indeed are you, and all active editors). My second thought was that you have consistently seemed to be a most approachable, reasonable and calm person, which led me to my third thought. Although I did need a cup of tea at that point. I wonder if you might be prepared to enter an open and honest dialog - preferably 'on-wiki' - with the aim of me understanding a bit more where you're coming from - and you perhaps offering some advice, thoughts, feedback, conclusions etc. etc. I hope you'll find me polite and reasonable, even in disagreement, and personally, I hope to be able to calmly discuss my perspective with someone who's prepared to calmly give their opinion directly. I'm hoping something personally quite useful (and possibly with valuable insight for application elsewhere on the wiki) may come of such a process - and I'm asking you because I think that if any of my points have any value, and you can see the value in them, then yours would be a very strong voice in spreading them (I speak here of bigger picture issues such as civility, ethical editing, pseduo anonymity, and most importantly, quality content development). I've got some specfic questions off the bat - perhaps initialy concerning this post; (edit conflict) Good block. That set of accounts created too much noise and not enough signal. - Jehochman Talk 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) and if you're prepared to read and respond a few posts a week for a little while, then I'll create a subpage and we can try and get somewhere. I will understand completely if it only takes you a couple of seconds to realise that you'd rather spend any spare time at all removing your toenails than involve yourself further with me - but I really would appreciate you considering it. Thanks, and have a nice day. Privatemusings ( talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Hi Jehochman; with regards to the speedy deletion of this article, I'm not sure how a job title classifies as a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content (or blatant advertising, as was previously tagged). I removed any references to specific hospitals. There seems to be enough material on the subject, even if it eventually turns out to be unnotable, but that's a different matter. Marasmusine ( talk) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed you had just deleted the Birendra Shah from CSD. It seems reasonable, since the article said virtually nothing. However, I think the subject is fairly notable, and was just about to remove the speedy and add a sentence or two describing the subject. Would you mind terribly if I recreated it and added some notes about the notability (briefly, Shah was killed by Maoists in Nepal a week or two ago, seemingly related to his journalism [7]). Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that you seem to have taken on a course of actions outside of consensus and and the processes of Wikipedia. You appear to have arbitrarily decided that certain contributors are problematic and are executing blocks without prior discussion or warning the "offender". I shall be reviewing the case of User:Academy Leader to see if any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines have been violated [refactored]. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)(edited by LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
File:Dainsyng.gif Less, I've always liked you. You are welcome to post here. I've adjusted my remarks, and no, I don't think you were acting on bad faith at all. - Jehochman Talk 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If I read correctly, you are now indicating that my voluntary withdrawal from that dispute is now enforceable as a defacto topic ban, and that DS just needs to link to this unresolved AN/I entry to report a "problem" with me? I never had a COI on Ted Frank's articles, my edit history on those pages is absolutely clean, and the editor on the other side of the dispute has been warned by 4 admins and an arbitrator to stay away. Yet I am the one who is to be watched? How does that happen? I tried to resolve the dispute civilly on that article's talk page, and he turned it into a war, then escalated to AN/I - and even as I am the one voluntarily backing off to avoid a monster drama, you tell David that my concession is enforceable?
Please tell me what I should have done differently, because honestly, I'm at a loss. It seems the only alternative I had was to ignore it, and let an editor add negative material to multiple articles related to the person with whom he had just had a very heated conflict. And doing it even though 5 respected users asked him not to.
I'm done with it, you can be sure of that, but please tell me what I should have done so I can avoid these "problems" in the future. ATren ( talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why you suspect I am a troll? You did not make that statement on the previous thread, yet you seem to have made a judgement, which is unfair since I have no idea why. Please tell me why, so that I may defend myself. And, FWIW, I did not report Calton. ATren ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jehochman. Just noticed that the article VFS India may need to be checked for NPOV. Looks like an anonymous user is trying to delete recent media reports, and at the same time making this entry look more like an advert. I've undone some of the changes, and I see the item has been tagged. Links to blog posts unless by prominent sources shouldn't be in there. Question is, how to you inform or warn an anonymous user with a changing IP address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindavin ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jehochman - are you going to fix this? Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit policy pages of disputes that you might be seen to be involved in. I do not want to block you, but I shall have to if such actions continue. This is your final warning. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I've noticed you on AN/I and other boards and articles which I frequent, and I just want to compliment you on your stellar work as an admin, no matter what other people might say. You've got a heart of gold and the best of intentions (not the "road to hell paved" kind, either), and I just want to thank you for making Wikipedia a better place, despite all the nationalists, POV-pushers, trolls, vandals and griefers. Well done. :) DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you posted something in response to the subpages section on WT:AN that caught my eye. Would it be possible to make a template of the form {{friv|waaaaaahmbulance}} that would automatically place that "frivolous, try DR instead" box around the text of "waaaahmbulance"? I suck at templates, so I was wondering if you knew how. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a thanks for refactoring this page- it was getting a pain to locate items. -- Rodhullandemu ( please reply here - contribs) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the Durova victims, first a sock of one, then a sock of another. No proof, no anything, just her own selfish motivation, more than likley stemming from some off balance sheet need to prove her own worth to the world. In need of help, she is. Songgarden in Deutschland, nicht vahr? 84.133.230.102 ( talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, please strikethrough your comment at Giano's talk page. I appreciate your loyalty, but I think it'd be better if you withdrew it. Durova Charge! 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I believe that you will find my (long) article at SEJ from today interesting. It is titled: Wikipedia Article Quality Assessment and Ranking Tips for Users and Search Engine Engineers. Check it out and add a comment if you see something missing or if you have additional recommendations that would be helpful for either users of Wikipedia and/or search engine engineers from Google and other search engines. :). Thanks and Cheers! -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a new user on Wikipedia with extensive experience in SEO, in addition to other fields.
I was looking over the Search engine optimization consultants and while it is good I belive it needs to be updated with new faces out there.
Some of the people I like others I hate, but they are the new breed of SEOs that SEO community respects and follows.
I recommend to nominate
Rand Fishkin www.seomoz.org
Vannesa Fox www.vanesafoxnude.com
David Naylor www.davidnaylor.co.uk
Andy Beard Andybeard.eu
Sebastian sebastians-pamphlets.com
Michael Gray www.wolf-howl.com
These are the most prominent and active SEOs in the industry. I believe each one of them deserves a page in WikiPedia. Igor Berger ( talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advise, and it will be very interesting to do it objectivly. But it will require a lot of work, so I hope I can adopt a user to help me with this.
As far as Sebastian is, who is he? He is very popular and has a very strong voice in the SEO community. He has many many followers who respect him and listen to him. But who is he? He knows his stuff inside out and rely very good. He has connections to Google, and Googlers listen to him. But who is he? Igor Berger ( talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman TalkI have added some new changes on Vanessa page, and also nominated Google Webmaster Central for a page, because it is very important for Google in alerting Webmasters of changes at Google. Before you cut and slash, talk with me here, or in email. If my grammar, structure, or syntax, is wrong please correct it. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 11:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I started building a page for Adam Lasnik but it was speedy deleted, I should have consulted you first, I am sory.
Can we build a page for Adam Lasnik or is there a request to WikiPedia, by him not to have pege?
I was just instructed to have a finished version built in a sandbox before bringing it public. How do I bring it public, do I just move it?
Also before building any pages, I like to have a senior editor nomination for the page, as to not waste time, playing in the sandbox. Igor Berger ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay so what will be your opnion on making Adam Lasnik page? Or shuold I post the question to the community? articles for creation Igor Berger ( talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sabastian being congratulated by Google at [ Google Webmaster Central Blog] for his help at Google Webmaster Help Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian claims to be an IT consultant in his Google Webmaster Help Group profile for smart-it-consulting.com Sebastian GWHG profile About Smart IT Consulting Services is a brand of Virtual Brains Inc., no imformation on VB Inc. ?
Looks like we dealing with primary SEOs that are on consultant page already, secondary professional SEO's that are notable that we have nominated, and tertiary New Age SEOs that are supported and aknowledge by Google, but may not be notable.
The tertiary SEOs use Gorila WarFare as their SEO practices techniques.
Now that the SEO has being diasected and brought out in the open, I will procede slowly with the pages that we nominated first.
Thank you,fyi, Igor Berger ( talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I set up the pages and gathering relative information.
If you can give me some feedback about the process, I would greatly appreciate it. Igor Berger ( talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman, this is actually Writer1400 from the Toto page, I've had to use a different account to contact you so the person I want to report can't track me down because he has a real problem with me. I believe the user TheHYPO is violating the rule Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for the Barenaked Ladies page. He has basically taken complete ownership of the page. He almost never allows anyone to touch the page other than himself. Any edit that is done by another user has to be gone over by him and if he doesn't like it, it automatically comes out even though some of the edits are improvements. I was able to get in a few small edits but I had to agrue with him for a long time to do so and I've actually improved the page alot with my edits. The page as he had it had very few sources and lots of unsourced sentences.
Could you look at the page and see what you think? I know last time I had a problem with him(a different problem) you refered me to someone else but I really think it would be best if you handled this. You did an excellent job and I know everything will turn out good if you handle it. Thanks alot. Cd50 ( talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, you have been named in an arbitration case. Please add a statement when you can. Dmcdevit· t 11:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure to what extent it is pertinent to have you named as a party; still reading through. Regards, El_C 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to introduce myself as a newbee to Wikipedia. I recently added some things to the Mythology page, but user DreamGuy keeps removing then without explaining why. He must have done a lot of work on that page and maybe sometimes thinks he owns it? I also noticed that he has been "blocked" before for certain violations. I hope that you can help me find my way around here if necessary. I also hope that you had a good Thanksgiving!
Regards,
- Fkapnist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkapnist ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Herman Tumurcuoglu Somebody just droped this link http://www.searchengines-optimization.com
I checked the site, and it does not look like a Notable SEO site, also Googled Herman Tumurcuoglu, but found no SEO relevency, accept some SE Spam pages.
Plese advise. Igor Berger ( talk) 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It was cleaned up by Sfacets, if you want delete this comment! Igor Berger ( talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lawrence, I've seen you around the Durova controversy and am wondering how you are doing? We haven't spoken lately. I hope you are doing well. I've been working on gamma ray burst and notice that you also have an interest in astronomy. - Jehochman Talk 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing all right, all things considered. Yes, I am trying to slow down a bit. If you would like to team up on some astronomy articles, I'd like that. - Jehochman Talk 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you ever get a chance or time, would you mind giving a few once-over copy-editing or reference formatting passes to Blackwater Worldwide? I'm thinking I want to focus on that or the Joe Szwaja article next, but in particular the Blackwater one. Its just a beast of an article to organize and I've been putting it off. I'd owe you an editing gnome/drudge work favor if you did. :) • Lawrence Cohen 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've mentioned you here. Feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. - Jehochman Talk 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, we may have a problem that Akismet flagging WikiPedia links in blog posts as Spam.
I had it happen to me 2 times already. Once with SEJ Loren and once with VFN Vanessa. I documented both cases with SnapShoot. Actually after running a test on SEJ, Loren took down Akismet and installed captcha.
I think the root of the problem maybe this.
Spam ocurences picked up by Projecthoneypot.org 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest 1,392 times 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape 1,392 times
http://www.projecthoneypot.org/comment_spammer_urls.php
This is a big problem for WikiPedia if Internet usrs cannot quote us, because of Akismet Spam filter. I am sure you know, Akismet filter has been causing problems for a long time with false positives.
If you need to see evidence that I have accumulated please let me know. So, please investigate this matter. Thnak you, Igor Berger ( talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Tagging_empty_categories, and sorry for not replying more quickly.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, this post is so funny it will make you fall out of your seat...
Do we have a cetogory to nominate a best SEO post? Actually, I would say it is the best blog post in all categories. I hope we have some place to put this, this lady is very smart. Chimps are Smarter tan SEO's Igor Berger ( talk) 10:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, these guys are all notable, even Rebecca from SeoMoz is with them. Seo-Chicks
I nominate to do an article seo-chicks.com Igor Berger ( talk) 11:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Alot of energy in the SEO community. Andy Beard take on eclussion and PR the best analysis on the matter that I have seen to date. Igor Berger ( talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. The message I have just posted on the proposed decision talkpage has a reference, and an implied question, to you in it. I would very much appreciate it if you'd respond in the same thread. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the standard triple crown you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova Charge! 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Would that be a good name for it? I don't know if I'm up to a first draft, myself. Your flexible ideas like Mackensen said could be just what is needed so no one can come down heavy handed on fair reposting of correspondance. And to clear up offsite linking, etc. • Lawrence Cohen 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, refusing to justify actions transparently IS the issue. That is PRECISELY the issue (at least, insofar as privacy and/or copyright is used as a smokescreen) that I was trying to address in that paragraph - why not reword it instead of deleting?— Random832 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
I've just been collating citation tools links together (see [13] and [14]), and I notice that the link on your user page and the link given here ( Diff) are different. Furthermore, md5sum says the XPIs on each page are actually different. Would you mind clarifying which one is the latest version/official version so I choose the correct/best link? Thanks! 124.148.105.71 ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that an image that you uploaded from the NSF was recently nominated at FPC. I read their Copyright and Reuse of Graphics and Text policy and they grant permission for use on a case by case basis. Did you contact them for permission or have any other information regarding use of NSF graphics on Wikipedia? Please add this info to the image discription page if you do. If not, then let me know and I'll contact them and request permission. Thanks, Cacophony 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova ( talk · contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! ( talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'e placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know that, as I say in ANI, I already told Physchim62 here about the ANI. I wouldn't open a debate about his supposed misuse without informing him first! However, it seems until now he has made some contributions but no answer... let's wait...-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I guess by you not replying to my question you did not investigate this in the first place when I asked? DTM142 has harrassed and deleted disscions just because he is anti hunting (View history of hunting etc). He does not understand the topic especially CITES and its effect on transportation. Then because I discussed the topic CITES started by poligamy4 he started harassing deleting the subject repeatedly. It there one set of rules for users and admins like him can do what they want and other admins wont pull them up when they have gone offline? Will you just delete this and not bother replying like you said you would?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Oh I have never shot anything illegally and from what poligamy4 said he never did. This was claimed by DTM142. Which is defaming on his part. Are admins allowed to use wikipedia to defame people? I would think this is against the rule or if not atleast somthing he should be talked too about?-- 203.192.91.4 ( talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Jon, if I may, can you tell me if the deleted article on
John Indian only contains the line shown in the deletion log, 'John Indian was the husband of Tituba' or if it contains more, and if it contains more do you mind userifying it for me?
Dureo
09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, thanks for your comments. Only problem is most socks seem to be operating, I'd need to warn them all. I've asked User:Alison to have a look, she's a Checkuser, so I'll see what she has to say. The list is becoming quite substantial!! The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I spoke on a panel about Social Media yesterday hosted by the SIIA. They're hosting a panel in Feburary about search engine optimization. They're interested in having someone from Wikipedia, and you were the first person I thought of. If you want to do it, contact Jeffrey Cutler: jeffcutler at yahoo.com. Raul654 ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that the editwarring was uncalled for, I don't think you should protect usertalk of a user who has been inactive for 3 days. Suva Чего? 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, thanks for alerting me to this. I have no problem with reblocking Kelpin for 1 second to note that the initial block was a mistake, but I won't be able to get to it until later today. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well it turns out there are a few sleeper accounts that turned up in the checkuser:
Can you block those? The request for ECW500 was stale, so it is unclear as to whether JB196 or ECW500 is behind this. But I'm willing to assume that the sockpuppeteer is User:ECW500 based on the (not so creative) usernames of his sockpuppets. This fellow's IP address' have been blocked as well:
And as I suspected all along, but added in as a clear party involved, User:SilentRage is not connected to these accounts whatsoever. — Save_Us_ 229 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I believe your latest protection of Ghirlas user page may be influenced by a bias. Could you please(I'm being polite here, see!)explain yourself. Otherwise I am inclined to suspect that your are abusing your admin privileges to help a friend make a point, ie making it clear that I have no right to wish happy days to Ghirla where ever he is... -- Alexia Death the Grey ( talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If a user is inactive, Alexia Death, you do not get to write something demoralizing in the wiki-sense yet somehow excuse that with real-life well-wishes and a couple of emoticons. I have removed the protection. Do not continue to add that "I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing. It has been quiet [sic.] past few months," or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. El_C 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is little left to add to what El_C have said, just a note on protection. Only worst trolls get their talk pages protected. This happens when they use it for hate speech after being blocked and for no other reason. This harassment has to be dealt with by dealing directly with the problematic users while protecting the page is the wrong solution. Also, if you bothered to check, Ghirla is not exactly inactive. He shows up once in a while making a small edit or two. So, a two-week protection was very much uncalled for. -- Irpen 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The page on Favicons does not point out that IE is particularly poor at showing favicons. I added a link that comments on this. The link was removed by SEWilco as being spam. He seems to have a somewhat checkered history. I don't have the time or the motivation to get into some kind of debate on this. Is there a way of editing the page to reflect IE's weakness on this without getting into a fling-flang session?
Thanks for anything you can do on this. ( Bwelford ( talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
A few days ago you left welcome spam on the contributions page of User:Businessplan. Now the same article spam is reappearing, this time via IP 216.93.194.239. Four of the edits are timestamped after the welcome spam. These edits re-add the removed spam.
In addition to re-adding the spam to Private Banking and Business plan. This IP has also added a vanity line to the article Matt Sheridan - the name of the person being advertised in the spam on the other two articles.
I'm not sure of the proper way to handle this. Many thanks, Egfrank ( talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You're correct. We can sort this out. Trivially. El_C strikes out the highly offensive accusations, and I'll be on my merry way. An apology would normally also be indicated, but I neither demand that nor expect it.
I appreciate your trying to help out here, Jehochman, but El_C has stepped far out of line. Especially in the current climate, making accusations of collusion (implicitely off-wiki collusion, since it can be trivially observed I have basically never had any on-wiki interaction whatsoever with David) is something that just shouldn't be done. It's an attack on my integrity (and David's for that matter, although I can obviously not speak for his motivations). — Coren (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe You recently blocked the account Lindi James for being a sock puppet This user claims that he/she is not a sock puppet to the account Pebblesmaster as you allege.
I understand by looking up the contributions of ECW500 which seems to be the original account i can see some similarities but i can't access the history for Lindi James and can't figiure out how he is involved with this
I don't know the specifics of the case but i guess that an IP search showed that this user has the same IP address as a person that was using an account for negative purposes.
It would be appreciated if you would discuss this with( User Talk:Lindi James) and work it out so that everybody is happy.
He is unable to contact you as he is blocked hence i am only a messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger.
Let me know if i can help and how it turns out as im interested in this case. Thank you Printer222 ( talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this account was identified as a sock puppet as they share the same IP address, this has already been identified in his talk page, it is an interent cafe. As this is an internet cafe there are going to be users that are identified as sock puppets but are not accounts that are used for good purposes. I canot see any trace of contributions made by this account that can be deemed to be not in the best intrest of wikipedia.
Why ban an account due to the fact that they share an ip address with a person who has been blocked. That's why this user created an account in the first place. Unless they can be directly linked to the sockpuppet they should have never been baned in the first place!!! Printer222 ( talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
About User:PatLarsen. His account was just created today and he seems to have found User:Prester John pretty quickly. [17] — Save_Us_ 229 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. Since I noticed you giving a COI warning to one of the contributors to Wiley Protocol back in May 2007, you might be interested in participating in the current discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you while updating the tally for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 you removed a significant portion of the votes. I assume this was an accident so I undid it but please revert me if it served some purpose. -Icewedge ( talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Jonathan, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to working with you going into the future.
--
A. B.
(talk)
19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
PS I was so impressed with your handling of that SEO COI case earlier this fall -- have you thought of doing OTRS work?
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.
Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.
I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D ( talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about removing your post -- I didn't even realize it till you replaced it. I was removing the duplicate and you managed to stick your edit in at just the wrong time. Sorry about that! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, thanks for the explanation. Does the bureaucrat explain anywhere how he reached his decision then? At least I suppose he must have a rationale if the vote is in the 70-80 range. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Best regards. PHG ( talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan - in light of your comment here, could you take a look at this please, which I just posted? It seems clear to me that Mister ricochet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another sock of Sixstring1965 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as was MindGuerilla ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and several others, and I think he too should be indef blocked. I'm interested in your view. Tvoz | talk 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I've sent you an email, please check. Thanks, R. Baley ( talk) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're game, would you mind checking out the last few sections of Talk:Waterboarding? There is a ton there, but the last 5-6 are the primarily current ones. All the rest are basically done in building a consensus over the past 30~ days. Given it's ultra-high profile nature, the chat has been decidedly civil, but given it's nature and that you edit under your real name I'll obviously understand if you don't want to wade in.
In that case, any recommendations for an admin or two that very good on RS and NPOV balancing issues who are neutral? :) My main concern is that I'm fine with adding language that favors a less "is torture" tone, if such sources could be found, but they've yet to be and people keep insisting otherwise. I'm basically looking for a few folks to watchlist it and chime in when anyone on any side of any fence starts to deviate from firm NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps banning this sad little moppet by machine ID seems a better course. Current ID: User:Youcantcatchme - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nom. -- Royalbroil 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't come close to "responding", and he's blanked every comment (including the entire threaded discussion regarding his block) that has questioned any of his actions. That you would post a "trolling" link at my page after the messages I left (did you read them) is a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Mr Which ??? 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please put them - SEO Spam domains on my talk page and I will investigate and put the owner domains on PHSDL Spam domains list...
If they want to be Famous SEO I aill oblige. http://seolinkmaster.blogspot.com/ I went down to blogspot and found out it's Indian Spam SEO trading links. Thanks, Igor Berger ( talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Re current situation on WP:AN, I have recently had email correspondence with Jimbo about a previous situation, which was covered by WP:SUICIDE. It's clear there at least needs to be a guideline for incidents like this. Whether it will be taken seriously remains to be seen. If you are soliciting contributions for a guideline, I'll willingly contribute. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
League of Copyeditors roll call |
Greetings from the
League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our
members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the
members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the
new requests system, which has replaced the old
/proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial
backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Thanks for the advice, you're right, I know. It's just Wiki-Road Rage sometimes, I guess. Snowfire51 ( talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking in the living persons noticeboard and saw there is a bit of a controversy regarding my recent edits. First, there seems to be a bit of a confusion on your part. It was I who first complained Mr Dannenberg had been potentially libeled and it was I who fixed his biography after a couple of vandals made him out to be a Nazi. I think someone may have edited my original complaint, but if you look what I first wrote you can plainly see I am the one who complained about the libelous remarks in the first place. If you could, I would appreciate not being cast the way I was and take out the line where you say I repeated those remarks. Thanks.
( NASA399 ( talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
I doubt Wordbywordbyword ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Kirbytime because I'm certain that Kirbytime couldn't come up with this quality of an article, which has references and looks like a very good contribution for a starter article. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to ask again, and you posted an offer before, but could I draw your attention to this? That page is falling apart fast with outside of policy POV pushing, and I think my attempts to try to broker anything there are completely fallen apart. Lawrence Cohen 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I EC'd you while adding the sections for discussions. Your comment to Randy is here. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Additional parties for your browsing pleasure are:
and FayssalF needs to recuse because of previous involvement. You can find additional evidence on Psychonaut's talkpage. Wise admins counseled a year ago this would be a circus. hmmmmm . They're all gone, smart fellows they were. Have a ball; Z has interrupted my editing for a year and a half. This is not going to take the rest of my holidays. This is a problem furthered by SV's untimely unblock where she should have let uninvolved admins handle the matter; the community needs to solve it. Oh, and how do you plan to handle Jimbo's involvement, since apparently it is his support (perceived or real) of her that has allowed Z to feel enabled to continue the behavior? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment at my talkpage. I know that it is a rather unfashionable mindset, but I think ArbCom works very well in circumstances such as these. It allows all participants access to each others viewpoints and interpretations of events - without drama and interruption - which can be a very salutary experience. It is also the only authority august enough (outside possibly of Jimbo) to have its decisions properly considered by all participants. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, is there a policy that states your allowed to ignore other editors completely even if it affects the overall good of a certain article. I got into an agrument with TheHYPO and he refuses to talk to me, I apologize to him and try to make amends and he still refuses. I need to be able to talk with him regarding the article on the band Barenaked Ladies as I would like to get the article nominated for good article status. Writer1400 ( talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You said, "The section I deleted did not belong on this talk page. Article talk pages are not the proper venue to leave warnings. If you have an issue about improper use of requests for checkuser, please file a report at the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Thank you." If it happens again, that's what I will do and I hope you will support me. The editor is using RFCU and WP:ANI in a campaign to own the article. Neutral Good ( talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am happy to answer your questions, no problem:
1. Do you consider yourself to be an activist on behalf of people with Aspergers?
Yes and no, I certainly wasn't until this year, and I will not be again ASAP, simply because I abhor the "activism experience" in general. My involvement relates to one specific issue that I am happy to explain to you by email but not "on-wiki".
2. Have you ever recruited other people who share your point of view to edit Wikipedia, specifically Asperger syndrome and any related articles?
Again, that is quite a tricky question, for me but in the answer you may come to understand AS a little better, at any rate as it applies to me. I have asked other people to contribute to the Asperger Syndrome article during this year, and I am sure that is no secret, simply because the deterioration in the neutrality of the article absolutely terrifies me on account of it's position on Google and the influence it has on people's thinking, and the way people with AS are perceived and treated as a result.
I asked them to contribute without even checking whether they shared "my point of view" (I don't think I have a very fully formed one) or not, because I feel that the deterioration in the neutrality of the article is subjective in origin, and, as a result, ANY objective opinion (including, for example, your own, if you wished to look into it) would serve to balance that. I would even have been happy with a reversion to the more balanced and objective 2006 FA. For me, in many ways, concepts like partiality and prejudice (even in my favor) are bad jokes that I don't really get. I am only interested in understanding and communicating objective reality, not in who's point of view trumps who's, if you can understand that? "Which team wins" is meaningless to me as long as the facts are valid.
However, while I did ask people to contribute, I don't think I actually succeeded in "recruiting" any, unless you know differently? :o)
Incidentally I never really DID edit the Asperger syndrome articles except to weigh in with consensus occasionally...believe it or not I feel too subjectively about AS to define it effectively in any capacity, and actually used a cut down version of the 2006 article to define AS for a national level submission here. I feel safer with the accuracy of an article into which many different people have put their perceptions, the are less likely to be errors and bias.
I have also been known to "buttonhole" any low flying shrink with an account here for comments on psych articles. Does that count?
3. Do you operate a website about Asperger syndrome?
Only since the summer and only as a formality related to a specific issue here. I have a degree of technical control over a couple of others too, but that's mostly because nobody else can be bothered, you, know the way. I think you will find that I have not made any secret of this and stated on the AS talk pages in August or September (I'll see if I can find the diff, I was looking at it yesterday) that with great regret the neutrality of the article had deteriorated to the point where bI had to de-link it as a definition on those sites. I think you will find that I have never dropped a link to any website I owned or had control of on-Wiki, if you know differently please show me because I will be far more disgusted with me for doing that than anyone else ever will be.
Always feel free to ask any questions, as long as I am free to answer them.
Incidentally, I hope you won't mind terribly if I get justice too? But whether you believe it or not I really do deserve it.
-- Zeraeph ( talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom has accepted, it opens tomorrow, shall we shake hands and wish one another a Happy New Year? -- Zeraeph ( talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at my new comments on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which are due to User talk:Lawrence Cohen#A question for you. Is this ban evasion and a range block situation? Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think it has to go there FIRST? To me that is a bit extreme. What are the disruptive editing practices you see? The sockpuppets seem to be handled. If they really were sockpuppets, which I think is debatable but probable. Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but does not past the smell test. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. You left a very ambiguous message saying that a contribution of mine appears to have been non-neutral and may have been removed. It has been removed, but you were not the one who removed it. Two questions:
1) How did this come to your attention?
and
2) How does the statement "the debate over whether or not biological factors influence the male decision to rape still causes great controversy, espescially between feminists and sociobiologists" convery a non-neutral POV? As far as I can tell, it acknowledges both sides of the argument but favors neither; which, to my knowledge, is the very definition of neutrality. The only other reason I can think of for removing the statement is if it is false, but that cannot be the case as the history of the rape page itself testifies to its veracity.
Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I just received a harassing comment on my user talk page from the same user who keeps reverting edits in Middletown, Connecticut. What should I do? (besides delete it?) -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much :) You may also want to take a look at 159.247.3.210, as it has also been a source of attacks from this user. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just received another harassing post to my talk page by same user under 129.133.124.203. Sorry this has turned into such a nighmare. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again; disruptive comments appearing on talk page of article Middletown, Connecticut , by 129.133.124.203 -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I just noticed your comment. By all means, feel free to take over. Regards, El_C 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Since you were the blocking admin for 129.133.124.199 ( talk · contribs) due to his conduct at Middletown, Connecticut, I thought you might be interested in this post which would appear to be the same person evading the block. It is to be noted that rather than revert warring, he's discussing matters on the talk page. Of course the judgement call on what to do with him is all yours, oh mop laden one! :-) Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Take that back; looks like it was an actual contribution to the talk page. Sorry, it's getting later here; I should probably bow out for now. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. [19] Risker ( talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my disputes with Writer1400 have lead to any drama being forced upon you; Every minor disagreement with him have resulted in a major blowup of drama, and I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle of it. TheHYPO ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind thoughts. Its ok if we do not always agree, but we do not have to be disagreeable! I hope I am not. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, could you have a look at this [20]. I'm being accused of personally attacking User:Blackworm. I am disengaging awaiting a review of my actions - would you mind taking a look-- Cailil talk 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the above is here at WP:AN. I'm having a look at the below now-- Cailil talk 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Since this is the original issue being rehashed by Blackworm, could you have a look at his post to my user-space here - if you would prefer I could ask a different sysop to overview (again), in case you are over worked or wish to recuse yourself-- Cailil talk 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I contacted Guy about it. He's busy so he may not be able to deal with it either, but it's not that urgent, it can wait till tomorrow or later-- Cailil talk 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Explanation for human behavior is the primary distinction between feminism and sociobiology. Feminists subscribe to social constructionism, the belief that culture is the only influence upon human action. There is no feminist, that I know of, who objects to this belief. Sociobiologists, meanwhile, believe that biology influences behavior. These are foundational tenets of their belief systems, their adherents are the most strongly opinionated, and this diametric conflict is responsible for most of the edit wars on the Rape page. MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The pages Rape and Sociobiological theories of rape are proof that the statement is objective, germane, and neutral. I am not adding anything to Wikipedia that is not already there. If you still believe otherwise, please elaborate. MannaOfTheMessiah ( talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
May I have your permission to copy the commments on my talk page to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ Vanished user#Community input on the findings of fact]]? I would make clear where they came from, and invite further discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is one I watch.
I would reverse this but given our recent interchange, I would expect you to consider it a sort of aggressive attack. So instead I will bring it to your attention.
I do not consider this removal to be a good thing. It did not look like advertising to me and it might be helpful to beekeepers doing research on how to affect this parasite. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I would just like to say that the strong language (no, not swearing this time - passionate but still civil) that I used in my response to your comment is not directed at you but "the gallery". I want to be able to defend my reputation, and striking through will allow the accusations to be still seen. I'm late to bed as it is, so my considered reply to Mattisse will have to wait a little while. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[[:Image:Harvard poster.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Harvard fans holding up Yale's "We Suck" placards, 2004. ]]
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou
This entire mess just went from annoying and dumb to surreal. Read: [21]
I really would like to see a very ride review of this via AN or ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to post this to AN or ANI please do so, otherwise I will, and I would prefer not to, as I'm a touch steamed right now. From that page:
Given that they 'orally' decided to take up the waterboarding page, I smell major meatpuppetry and an answer in part to why this page has been a disruptive fiasco. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some mutual friends Wonder if you know? Igor Berger ( talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, so that was unexpected. El_C 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Have a look why? thx Igor Berger ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice. I'll definitely follow it, if there is no objection to it. I'd also like to say sorry for declining the coaching so early after the last RFA, I ultimately ended being coached by Rlevse, but I appreciated your thought nevertheless. Best regards, Rudget . 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Blue Tie asked, "Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it."
You relied, "Yes."
I reply, "No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the 'other side' while ignoring the same conduct by 'your side.' That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point."
Please think about how oppressive this conduct is and, just as important, how it is perceived by people who disagree with your interpretations. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help in the McGill University matter, and with trying to keep Editorhwaller from further disrupting wikipedia. Thanks for your attention in the matter. Snowfire51 ( talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And now there seems to be a second sock or meat. I think you may have to semi-protect the Talk pages for McGill, Snowfire and me. Thanks. I see you seem to be on top of this. Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik• talk 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. As you can no doubt understand, I have been attempting to communicate in a rational, civil manner with the editor in question for more than 2 months, but he seems completely oblivious to the non-negotiable need for compliance with even such simple policies as WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE - which is extremely aggravating. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's unusual that Gene Poole said this at 17:53 when I changed the article back at 18:00. This would mean that he would have predicted the change from the discussion page, but it makes sense to write why you think the change should happen rather than just changing the page without a comment. I never actually said that I would change the edit back, so obviously he wants the dispute to happen. I didn't delete the sources, and since Gene Poole is so concerned about reporting what sources say, I used his website as a source for Atlantium. I think Gene Poole just wants to continue the dispute, he questions whether the convention will actually become official and he is being completely unreasonable. If he does not want to stop the dispute then he is an uncooperative editor. He spends more time arguing and continuing the dispute than editing. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see why you suggest using restrictions - but at the moment I don't think they are needed, if the dispute resolution fails then yes, but so far it seems to be working. I will add sources even without a restriction. Gene Poole isn't just an officer, he is the emperor - so he probably knows the most about the Empire of Atlantium. Thanks for the request, I think it is useful - but it will be more effective if the dispute resolution fails. Let's see how this dispute resolution ends first. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have written on Gene Poole's discussion page about the convention, I think this can end the dispute entirely, and stop a lot of future disputes. If you need any further information, see the Wikiproject's discussion page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I checked the last 5000 blocks via Special:Ipblocklist (mostly out of curiosity), and found that
which you blocked as Tor exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, Iamunknown 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A. You mention free speech on your user page. B. On ANI, Profg says "you will be slammed". If true, this should be an eyeopener that WP slams people. He said " Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it". He didn't say to vandalize it. C. According to WP:CANVASS, "to block the user(s) only if they continue". I see no warning notice on his user page.
Therefore, you have improperly blocked this man. You should unblock him and follow the proper procedure. If he is a jerk, he will violate the procedure and then you can block him. Do not be a jerk just because he is a jerk.
By doing what you did, you slammed him just like he predicted. You became the bad guy and he became the victim. Do the right thing and unblock him for now. Onequestion ( talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your help is highly appreciated. Igor Berger ( talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, your post to the arbcom enforcement board made me wonder about backing assertions of bad behavior. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Diffs for assertions about behavior? Anynobody 08:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you J. Igor Berger ( talk) 09:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a second, I'd like to request semi-protection for the Phil Luckett article. He's a ref who made a questionable call in the NFL playoff game today, and he's drawing heavy random IP vandalism for stuff that can't be properly sourced until after the game. I made an oficial request, but I thought I'd see if you were around to maybe cut this off early. Thanks! Snowfire51 ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you do not want to apply the remedy to AN yourself due to previous involvement (although I do not think that should be a concern in your case) but if you do not want to then you may want to post something on AN/I (if you have not already - I did not check) as WP:AE gets scant attention. Thanks. -- JustaHulk ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[Excitedly] I've got new messages?(!) [[Dissapointedpointed-pointed<ly] Ughh! :( El_C 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I don't want to fight you. We are on the same side, the Wikipedia side.
You show honour by not reverting comments like some admins do. For this, a star for you. (*). Let's just let the checkuser request take its course, whether it's run or not.
If I were you, I would have reworded the request much differently. I would have said all these 3 users are not improperly acting like socks of each other so no checkuser is requested between these. However, a checkuser of Profg to each of them is requested to show they are not Profg.
If you are worried about meat, none of them are voting together. Maybe they are admin who don't want to publically support Profg but are against full community ban. Or maybe someone wants to make a suggestion on the talk page but given the hostility of the subject doesn't want to be stalked or attacked.
Just some thoughts. Republic of One ( talk) 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I removed my other RFCU comment. That's a 50% reduction. I'll leave my other one there or it will look like admin intimidation of an editor. Let's not start a fight, ok? Objection noted, you responded. I withdrew 1 of 2 comments. Republic of One ( talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As one admin to another, I try to give great deference to another admin's judgement and actions. Your RFCU could have been handled much better without potential damage to WP.
The results are in. Your accusation was wrong. There was a comment that the RFCU was not a category F. I tend to agree. Furthermore, all 3 listed people were different. However, one person who makes good contributions (Congalese fufu), including current work on 2 articles to bring them to featured article status, has been outed. It is very possible that this editor will cease editing because of this. If this happens, Wikipedia would have been harmed because of actions that you started. All of our actions have consequences. We admins are always pointing out vandalism but our actions can have the same long term effect as the vandals if we are not careful.
I told the checkuser that I am willing to discuss privately with productive edits who have an alternate account if this can improve their behavior. You could have done this and not chase away an editor. Walton One once made a similar comment. You see, my main goal is WP improvement. Archtransit ( talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice of violation of official Wikipedia policy
By your own admission ("a one minute block to note this case in their log" as noted here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFCU#Onequestion), you have violated official Wikipedia policy stated in this passage
[22] . It gives me no pleasure to block another admin. However, this will be evidence that can be cited to the skeptical that WP has a cabal that protects its own. This block is done to prevent further damage to WP by preventing your edits. I encourage you to reflect on this situation and how your good intentions resulted in violation of official Wikipedia policy as well as probable damage to WP in terms of other's improving the encyclopedia.
Your term of blockage w ill be 12 hours, calculated as less than half of the 31 hours normally given for vandalism. Please accept this as a learning experience and not plan retaliation. Archtransit ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Original block clearly stated that blocking as to prevent damage to WP by preventing further violations of official WP policy. Despite being unblocked, Jehochman is encouraged to carefully follow WP policy in the future. Archtransit ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. How exactly was Congolese fufu "outed"? Lawrence Cohen 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you reduced the block of Congolese fufu so much that it no longer was really a block. You weren't intending to stop them editing for 1 minute, you were intending to put an entry in their block log. I can see that your intention was generosity, but I think the option you chose was one not really open to you. That said it wasn't a very serious breach of the blocking policy and some might well invoke WP:IAR to defend it. Certainly a block was not the right response if someone disagreed with your action. That said, could everyone please bear in mins that the admin who blocked Jehochman is very new to the job - and that ideally this should be treated as a learning experience rather than an opportunity to lynch someone. WjB scribe 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A barnstar is being made. It will commend Jehochman from turning anger (threats to prolong the matter into dispute resolution) into presumed calm. These turning points are what make barnstars meaningful, not just patting friends on the back. Archtransit ( talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You might recall User:Lulu Margarida was blocked for a week in November for their disruptive behavior, incivility, and intimidation attempts at the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article. The block expired, but they did no more editing after that. However, today apparently Lulu has decided to return. For their first edit, they left a note on my talk page with the heading of "Hello Freak." [24]. So far that is all they have done, but I'm mildly concerned that this is the first action they take up on deciding to return to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be a good sign that they intend to not repeat their past incivilities. I don't know if any action is warranted now, but I thought it would be good for an admin to be alerted so hopefully someone keeps an eye on him. Collectonian ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
..for being gracious and reasonable, even when blocked. If everyone was like that, the drama quotient around here would go way down. Friday (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, even though I disagreed with you on whether it was resolved until Archtransit actually acknowledged an error :-P Avruch talk 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI Avruch talk 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Well done on finding that account. Still trying to assimilate what it all means. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Comments on Mateohoffman for my thoughts so far. Will you be taking this to the proposed decision talk page? I suggest you do at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Igorberger tells me he started this article on your say-so and it got CSD'd. You're the resident expert on SEO. Follow up with the fellow, please. Durova Charge! 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Phoenix-wiki, I believe is not an admin, made the change. I am shocked that a non-admin would think they he or she has the right to change the title of any arbitration request. But User:Phoenix-wiki did proof right here! Do you supposed that this is the kind of behavior I've been dealing with on the Asian fetish article? Now, I ask you why the hell are personal attacks on me using external links going unpunished on wikipedia? Just look at the Asian fetish article the involved parties are having a field day with the article and I don't have a clue? Since it looks like you are an admin, I challenge you to do the right thing and punish those who obviously personally attacked me. Tkguy ( talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
You seem to know every caveat of WikiPedia. I am proud to learn from you. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your hard work towards the Cause! Igor Berger ( talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
That page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources...-- Damifb ( talk) 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to say a special thank you to you aswell, your unfailing support over this and my last RFA restored my faith in Wikipedia back in October, and I'm glad I can work with you in areas that I may not have done previously. Thank you once again.
Sorry if I seems a bit bitey towards Igor, but his comments just really struck me as having a bit of a conflict of interest, if not some ownership issues with regards to his article. Also, some of his threats have been a bit out of line, threating to go to RFC and getting other admins involved, along with his original threat to canvas other users for the AfD. I understand English isn't Igor's main language, but all of it together just comes off a bit harshly. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Since your current proposal is limited to instances of confirmed sockpuppetry, I suggest instead you seek a change at Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging to make unauthorized removal of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet templates a blockable policy violation. That would have two advantages:
Think of what happened to Orderinchaos. [27] We want to minimize instances of that, not increase them. If he hadn't already been a known administrator that could have been a scarlet letter. Durova Charge! 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice before I put my foot in my mouth again. There is no score to settle or blocking quota that I want to fill. I think I'll go back to my previously undone tasks with the testing of the tools in a slower, controlled manner. The Fairchild Dornier 728 was an article that I was working on until recently. Archtransit ( talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am getting tired reverting his corretions and links. Igor Berger ( talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry on me at the AN/I has disappeared.
Does that forebode something worse? If not, what does it indicate?
Stone put to sky ( talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sincerely -- Stone put to sky ( talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny that you answered for Ryulong. Are you following him or me? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Codyfinke is such an odd user. Why would someone do that? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see your name is listed here. I've taken a look here and left comments, as well as on WP:AN. The whole process of coaching seems to be stalled. I know we've had our differences in the past, but you strike me as being an extremely capable mentor, even though I'm aware you're busy elsewhere. Now, I'm fairly new (<6 months), but I am committed to WP and have an edit record of which I'm, well, perhaps proud is not the right word, but hopefully confident: User:Rodhullandemu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I am fully aware that I've made mistakes, and am prepared to admit them; in fact in an RfAa, I'd do it up front and admit to inexperience and frustration. If you don't feel you can spare the time to help me, I will understand that fully; it would be useful, however, if you could give me at least an informal indication of where I could improve. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: RfA: Thanks for your message. I am having great difficulty dealing with this at present, because it would be an awesome responsibility to take on, even if I pass the community test. I would be forever looking at my back, which I suppose is no bad thing for an admin, in that being given a mop & bucket is really no great accolade. However, if I have a mission, it's to protect and improve the encyclopedia. Knowledge is important to me, and if I can make a difference, the additional responsibility, although daunting, would be worth the effort I would be prepared to take. Thanks for your confidence. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You said here that there's no evidence to suggest an alliance. The real situation is that evidence exists to both support and oppose the existence of the alliance, which is why I'm undecided about the affair. What is your opinion of the supporting evidence? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen. It is most appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I followed your advice when building Andy Beard and did it as WP:BLP. Please take a look at it. Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Talk:Andy Beard ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. I figure Talk: shouldn't redirect to User talk:... It just doesn't seem appropriate. Tuvok T @ lk/ Improve 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What I see is a huge rush to ban the guy. Why? Why not some deliberation? I never said "this guy should not be banned".
Look what other's wrote:
I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B
…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)
Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)
I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan
All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan
Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan
A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX
I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by
Orderinchaos
17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - very selective quote which omits context
based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B
I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B
Thanks for uploading Image:Roper-Industries.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I don't really understand why you've shifted your position on this article, but I think that your actions, while well-intentioned, are aiding a bunch of POV-pushers. I have formed a negative opinion of Neutral Good simply from his tendentiousness at Talk:Waterboarding, as well as my suspicion that he's a sockpuppet of User:Bryan from Palatine, but I've participated in discussions with Blue Tie before at Talk:Global warming where he's used the same type of tactics he's using at waterboarding. Please read the sections about Naomi Oreskes' article at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_21#There_is_something_wrong_with_the_Oreskies_cite and see if you think this is an editor who's consistent about the OR policy. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a suggestion for a compromise / learning too on Archtransit's talk page. As you have been personally affected by this situation, your input would be more than welcome. If you'd rather not comment / get involved, that's fine too.