User talk:Jehochman/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2 -- User talk:Jehochman

Contents

[edit] Admin coaching

There's an interesting situation that could use a sockpuppet investigation. Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. I'm dropping word with a few of my trainees about this. DurovaCharge! 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

If you're interested in putting in some sysop-like work, have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. It's got 31 open cases including a long list of bot-identified probable vanity articles. The board could really use some extra help and much of it doesn't need the tools. Drop me a line if something needs a block. Regards, DurovaCharge! 14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uber

Per your comment at 3RR: you may be interested in Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR William M. Connolley 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Yeah, you're right, I got rather pissed off by that article. I've left an apology on the guy's talk page. Thanks, I'll be more tactful in future. mattbuck 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove it all ...

You may as well remove all links to beeradvocate being that we are just spamming and trying to make a buck off of wiki. Let the wiki beer project know as well. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer#Templates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalstromer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] conflicts

I suggest that when you do edit an article dealing with someone you consult for, to make a note of it on the article talk page. DGG 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, David G. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer links and WP:EL

I've gone over the externl links policy twice and I don't see where the links to BeerAdvocate, RateBeer or Quaffale fail it in any way. While I do post to beeradvocate.com sometimes I'm not any sort of poobah on the site, and I have no particular interest in promoting them or anything else; they're just useful resources that include information beyond what would be considered notable in the articles.

In mentioning general notability you raise a point which has been raised, discussed, and resolved a few months ago; we held a lot of discussions with people arguing strongly on both sides but consensus seems to clearly be that a wide swathe of breweries notable under WP:N and indeed two that I've written articles on (Bryncelyn Brewery and Wye Valley Brewery) have not only survived review by the broader Wikipedia community but gone onto WP:DYK.

With regard to the current debate, I humbly submit that User:Jalstromb, while enthusiastic, is rightly miffed that BeerAdvocate was moved, then deleted. That speedy simply should not have happened; the move was done by a user who's made broad unilateral changed before, and nobody caught it in time to discuss it. I can understand why at first glance some of the editing Wikiproject:Beer has been doing might seem reactionary, but it seems to happen every so often that someone will make lots of changes to a large number of articles without any discussion whatsoever; in the case of the BeerAdvocate links in particular, a user deleted a number of the links, then when prompted for an explanation said that the site had been blacklisted but could not produce any evidence to that effect whatsoever. Given incidents like that, I think we're right to be on our guard. --Stlemur 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted a deletion of links you made to Wye Valley Brewery; I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it could be argued that the links aren't fully acceptable, in particular in light of:
  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and ) accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
These sites include things like contact information, photographs, reviews, and more complete beer lists than can be practically included in the article. --Stlemur 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I am motivated by the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL. These may apply to this particular set of external links:
  • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  • Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
You'll notice that iPod does not link to any social networking/rating sites, such as C|Net, even though C|Net is much more notable than BeerAdvocate. I won't edit war with you, but I will report this to WP:WPSPAM so other editors can help us resolve the matter. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's asserted that the sites should be linked to because some of them have social networking content; if anyone is linking to the fora rather than to the beer pages, those should be removed forthwith. In terms of unique information, though, the sites are very often more complete and up-to-date than the brewery websites; many large brewers produce beers that they don't promote at all (e.g. Hardy & Hanson's Mild) and so never appear in official literature or websites, while small ones often don't have sites or other publications, or don't update what they have. For me, at least, the cataloging aspect of these sites is far and away more important than the rating aspect or anything else. What's more, I think we can both agree that including the level of detail provided on the outside pages -- beer alcohol by volume, monthly availability, serving styles available, and so on -- would be beyond what would reasonably be provided in a featured article.
As for including the suite of three or four, yes, sometimes they are somewhat redundant with one another. In the case of BeerAdvocate versus RateBeer, as User:Jalstromb points out it would look biased to only include one site or the other (the two are fierce competitors); in the case of a site like QuaffAle, its information is updated more frequently for UK breweries than either RateBeer or BeerAdvocate, but it doesn't have any beer lists. While I agree we shouldn't include all four sites if they all include exactly the same information, most of the time that simply isn't the case. --Stlemur 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem, which I've seen before several times, is that your list of three good beer review sites will morph into a list of three good sites and 25 spammy MFA (Made for Adsense) sites. If you have that same list on hundreds of different beer articles, it's much harder to guard against this than if you put the list in one place. Also, why have links to three sites that provide essentially the same info. Wikipedia isn't a search engine. If somebody wants to know about a beer, they can just Google it. If the breweries don't list all their products, that's their own fault. Wikipedia isn't here to correct that. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tips. i've finished playing now and will leave you alone.

[edit] Deletion of my article on Blade3D

Hello, my article on Blade3D was recently deleted without warning. I have tried to contact the admin who deleted it but so far have not received a response. I notice you left a message on my talk page regarding possible conflict of interest shortly before it was deleted so I was wondering if you were involved in the deletion process.

The article was a lot of work, written by myself and members of our community and the intention was to provide an objective, informative and unbiased view of the product from a technical perspective, not advertise. In fact the article was based on another article Softimage XSI, a well known 3D modeling system and our article maintained the same spirit. If you compare our article with the one for Visual3D.NET for instance I think you will agree that our article is an order of magnitude away from being advertising even though this other article survives.

I am not an experienced Wikipedian, but from a business perspective I'm sure you can appreciate it is important that a company maintain a presence on wikipedia if competitors also have content here. Perhaps in a perfect world no products would be in Wikipedia but the reality is far from this nirvana. We recognize the conflict and this is why we tried to make the content of our article technology related rather than blatant advertising. I might add that we have no objection whatsoever in changing the content of the article to be more compliant so that this does not happen again.

Anyway thanks for reading--Digini 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem you have is that you are completely ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you write about yourself, your own company or your own product. Please start at Wikipedia:Introduction and read through the basics. If your competitors are spamming Wikipedia, there are proper ways to report that so the community can remove those articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Doug Heil

I have no idea if I responded to you the right way, so I'll leave the same message here...

[edit] ==============

It's a shameless promotion and I didn't delete the page. All I did was add a link to a page within wikipedia.

He is a douche bag and if you don't let other SEO's publish their info on wikipedia, then you don't need to allow that douche have a page on wikipedia either. He is NOT wikipedia worthy unless you will allow people to say what they really think of him.

Of course, I'm sure whoever this is editing this subject, you probably have your profile up to.

UPDATE: I stand corrected...you're not listed that I could find. But you have to admit, since you obviously know the guy, I'm not sure what purpose that page has being listed. It is not helpful to wikipedia at all. And if I somehow deleted the page, you have my personal apology, I did not try to delete it. I will admit to putting the link to wikipedia "douche bag" page.

I see you're speaking next week...can't wait to see who slapped my hand!

[edit] ==============

In response to: Doug Heil

He's not my favorite SEO either, but that doesn't mean you can just delete his page. Next time you don't like a page, use proper procedures to get it reviewed. AntiVandalBot reverted your edits within seconds.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Doug Heil. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Cheers! Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Archive_2, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

construct deep linking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coetzeen

I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?

There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.

Regards, --Coetzeen 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, you have just admitted that this is original research. Second, you are writing about yourself, which is a conflict of interest. And third, you have added inappropriate external links to your site. I recommend you read these guidelines carefully, and consider joining the mentorship program. No hard feelings, please. This is the way things work here. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning isn't working ...

FYI, you may want to revisit this issue. Thanks, Keesiewonder talk 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is logged at WP:COI/N. I am going to leave it for the administrators to handle. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problem edits

hi, my wife was told a recent contribution was inappropriate

but cant figure out how to find out which one!

[edit] Callmebc

Thanks for handling the problem with User:Callmebc. I'd originally intervened and warned Callmebc about a number of issues. However, when he started insulting me I figured I'd better get another admin to look at the situation so I couldn't be accused of a conflict of interest. But you and DurovaCharge! were so on top of the situation that I didn't even get the chance to ask someone for assistance. Excellent work. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, don't mention it. I'm a Connecticut Yankee, by the way. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Callmebc has now posted a lengthy post on his talk page at User_talk:Callmebc#72_hour_block where he says he was setting a "a three-part, self-incriminating trap." Strange. Might want to check it out. --Alabamaboy 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I warned User:Andyvphil about that specific personal attack at User_talk:Andyvphil#Personal_attack_warning. B/c I cut User:Callmebc a ton of slack, I felt it would be unfair to block User:Andyvphil without first warning him. But if User:Andyvphil does even one more personal attack, I will block him for a while. Would you support that?--Alabamaboy 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm just trying to sort out who said what to whom leading to my 72 hr block. One thing I'm wondering about is whether you actually read any of the exchanges between me and "Alabamaboy"? He was brought in by "CWC," and "CWC" committed some no-no's including one really big one that both you and "Alabama" apparently chose to put a blind eye to. I would have thought an email threat would be considered slightly more noteworthy than someone using the term "shit-for-brains," but I'm not so wise in the wild and wacky Wiki ways (there seems to be a lot of libertarians and MENSAs around, which would explain a few things). So what's up with that? Also, could you kindly tell me who actually put the block on me, "Durova" or "Athaenara"? A curious mind would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record: (1) I had absolutely nothing to do with User:Alabamaboy's participation in Callmebc-vs-everyone-else and (2) my big "no no" exists only in Callmebc's mind (as do the other things he has accused me of). Cheers, CWC 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do believe I wasn't asking you the question, and I while I appreciate your no-doubt sincere intentions to be helpful, I'm quite sure you'll have plenty of opportunities later to explain your side in more detail. I'm just asking a question or two to help clarify matters. I have noticed how many here tend to prefer making nonresponsive statements over directly answering questions, but please consider humoring a Wiki newbie trying to make sense of it all. Thank you kindly. -BC aka Callmebc 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yet again -- I'm still awaiting a response from you (and not CWC) in regards to my earlier questions: whether you had actually read any of the exchanges between me and "Alabamaboy," why you never commented on CWC's email threat/warning/whatever; was it actually "Durova" or "Athaenara" who put the block on me; and how exactly did you come to get involved in the first place? And for the bonus question, how come nobody has yet fixed the curious state of the "history" of the Talk (aka "Non-Discussion") page -- CWC evidently made a bit of a mess just after the block was put on me. A still curious mind would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) We have a big backlog at WP:COIN. Why don't you go over there and help investigate some of those cases? I assure you, doing a bit of work over there will help you feel much better. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While I will admit to maybe, possibly having certain skills that could in theory help rather than hurt with those types of investigations, I alas have more immediate concerns at hand I'm trying to sort out. Since you were involved in somewhat unclear ways in one of those immediate concerns, it would be most helpful if you could clear up matters a little bit by addressing my questions. Any info would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
BC, my point is that there are lots of ways to help the encyclopedia. My talk page is the wrong forum to discuss who did what and why. Looking at your user contributions lists, I see that you've only edited one article. Your opinions will carry more weight if you get involved with a diversity of articles, projects and activities here. I am trying to help you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me try this one last time and I'll also try to simplify matters: 1) had you actually ever read any of the exchanges between "Alabamaboy" and I before involving yourself? 2) did you not see the subsection called "Email threat," and if so, why not ask about that instead of the use of a naughty word? 3) how exactly did you come to get involved with the Killian dispute in the first place? and 4) who actually put the block on me, "Durova" or some mysterious 3rd party named "Athaenara"? A responsive answer would be really refreshing at this point and most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anchor

Hey, who said it was "my" site? It isn't... all this is instigated by Alain Poiraud who is the designer of the "Spade" anchor... which was portrayed as only 2nd best, dear oh dear, by a comparison chart which was based on independent data. Poiraud solicited a buddy from external forums (Russeasby) and they have been slandering the content as spam ever since, on the basis that the chart was an interpretation of the data by Rocna (who simply adjusted it to be on a more fair weight-for-weight basis). The other reason was the presence of permission from Rocna to use the chart, as opposed to the original versions from the published test results.

More personal attacks are the norm now, as I seem to be the only one defending the existing content. There were some good contributions from 3rd parties on the talk page but they were largely ignored at the time by Russeasby until he found something he liked.

The links in question which you've removed: I don't see the problem, the Coastguard article in particular is entirely independent and has been published by what I assume you will agree is a reputable organization. Just because it's hosted on a manufacturer's website, so what?

The whole debacle is designed to introduce a bias against a particular brand (Rocna) by its competitor(s) or other interested parties, given the success of the product and the independent reviews/testing now available. The fox is in the henhouse, so-to-speak.

You should note that all this content has been present for a considerable time and survived numerous edits by more neutral editors.

Anyway the article's been fully protected now.

bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 11:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a case, you need to shorten your comments and cite specific edits. If you look at the article history tab, you can compare two edits and copy that URL. That's called a "diff," and is what you should use as evidence. It seems that you are affiliated with Rocna, so it's not appropriate for you to make controversial article edits related to your brand. As soon as you get out of the way, we will look at the other participants. Feel free to make a short statement supported by evidence at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard if you need to draw attention. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have been involved to a degree with the conflict at Anchor and behavior of User:Badmonkey, I wanted to point out that I have opened a RFC on User conduct at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey, if you wish to comment or certify the RFC. (RFC instructions directed me to leave comments on pages of uninvolved editors who attempted to resolve hte dispute and may certify it, so this is not WP:CANVASS). Russeasby 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've added by bit. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Break.com

Meh. Thanks for the notice. Feel free to fully review the article for tone, content and sourcing. I Was only there because we got an email complaining about this article and when I check it out the person complaining was filling it full of POV and OR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut State Library (talk · contribs)

The user's talk page was deleted not long ago, after the name was blocked as promotional. The details of the block were on the talk page, but you wouldn't have seen that since it's gone now. I believe the user registered a different name, because a user with the non-promotional name User:Nancy Peluso took over where this user left off on the Connecticut State Library article. Just figured I'd let you know what the situation was, since you left the note for Connecticut State Library. Leebo T/C 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I look at so many of these I forget who's who. Nancy Peluso isn't overtly affiliated. If you have any info to the contrary, let me know. Otherwise, she's off on her merry way to edit this article. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't saying we discuss it with Nancy Peluso, because she is contributing in good faith. Happy editing. Leebo T/C 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for AGF

Ah, darn. Looks like my RFA didn't succeed. No doubt I'll take another run at it in a few months when my edit count isn't such an issue. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky 57

Thanks for the message about conflict of interest. I assumed (incorrectly, I suppose) that because of the notability factor of the persons in the band Lucky 57, it was ok to create a page. I know you mentioned you did not mark it for deletion, but it appears to be gone anyway. How can the information be legitimately posted? Thanks again. Looseground 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you can look at my early contributions and see the same kind of mistake. Getting Wikipedia to create a new page isn't the easiest thing. If you think the band is truly notable, you could create a page within your userspace. Try User:Looseground/Sandbox. Add some content there, and then try find an established editor, interested in music, who has no connection to the band, and no strong connection to you. Ask them if they would review the content and maybe help turn it into an article. Your odds will be improved if you become active editing music articles and develop your own reputation and learn more about how Wikipedia works. Take a look at Wikipedia's mentoring program. The other thing you can do is work on getting reporters to write about the band. Having independent source of info will increase the band's notability. Even with no direct effort on your part, if you become notable, somebody may start an article spontaneously. That's the best possible outcome. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi - The band has been written about in the National press (Boston Globe, LA Daily News, TimeOut NY, etc.) - and was this past years winner of a Boston Music Award. The band members are from other notable bands who are listed in Wikipedia (Human Sexual Response, for example.) So Lucky 57 is not unknown - just not on a major label (or "indie" label for that matter -- one and the same - Looseground Records is the band's own label DIY)

Thanks for the suggestion about the sandbox. If you could recommend an established editor for this sort of article, that'd be fantastic. Best.

[edit] Social Media Optimization

Hai Jehochman,

You're right, Wikipedia isn't a How-to book, but then again the rules of SMO aren't real 'rules'. I altered the introduction to the rules, since Braghava also ment them to be 'rules to guide the thinking' instead of real, hard 'rules'.

Hope to have contributed!

Gr. M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MTiemersma (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Aces High

Learn to comment on an article's talk page. It benefits other editors interested in the topic.--Scribner 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see another editor has told you to use the article talk page, but you still fail to do so why? I've place a copy of the other editor's request and your reply below.--Scribner 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest that when you do edit an article dealing with someone you consult for, to make a note of it on the article talk page. DGG 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, David G. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)"

Also, David you place a "protected" tag on the article without the authority to do so. Don't do that, and learn to use the article talk page, got it?--Scribner 06:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not David, and I am getting annoyed by your badgering. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The solution to this is for you to use the article's talk page and keep your comments on topic. Once again, material posted in the article (any article) needs to be verifiable. Information that is not supported by the cites will be removed. I've stated all of this on the article talk page. Why am I having to tell you personally on your talk page?--Scribner 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nearly 3,000 edits and am well aware of all the policies you cite. I don't care so much about this article. My grave concern is that you are edit warring and badgering anyone who disagrees with you, me included. This is very harmful to the project. I will report this to WP:AN/I if you insist on continuing. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause

The user 208.201.146.137 has continued to edit the article Common Cause despite being warned by you on their talk page. It seems action needs to be taken on this matter again. Cheers, XINOPH | TALK 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a shared IP address so I have assumed good faith. There could be more than one user. If they continue to ignore the warnings, we should try to block the IP address. Jehochman (talk/contrib)
You're right, except that 90% of their edits have been to this article, and 90% of those edits have been to revert edits others have made in an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. Whether it's more than one user or not, the article seems to be getting edited by Common Cause employees on the job. We should keep a close eye on this. XINOPH | TALK 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte

I should mention that my username predates that movie :) >Radiant< 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause

208.201.146.137 has again edited the Common Cause article despite your previous warning. They have also removed the maintenance tag unilaterally again, violating separate rules. XINOPH | TALK 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for watching this. I will go find an admin to block the IP address. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No luck at WP:AIV. We've been too slow to report this. Next time they make an edit like this, we need to report it promptly. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, in order for the rules to be enforced around here we need to report it immediately after a violation? Simply the fact that there was a violation should be enough to ban them. That sounds pretty silly to me. XINOPH | TALK 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. We need to go to an administrator, but I'd rather not bother somebody when the problem may have cleared itself up. In any case, if I request adminship I'll be able to handle these things myself, which will be much more efficient. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Training Excercise

Hello Jehochman. Since you are currently in administrator training and also a bit familar with the subject, here is a case where you can test your knowledge in wikipedia processes. It's an AfD debate for the affiliate network ShareAsale. It is currently in deletion review. Your opinion and insight in this matter would be appreciated. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daughters of Enid Blyton

Both Gillian Baverstock and Imogen Mary Smallwood are book authors, although most of the books are (at least in part) about Blyton. I think their writing makes them independently notable. --Eastmain 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, I am not sure that writing a book, by itself, is enough to establish notability. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endal (dog)

Your support truly appreciated and after feeling bullied into the ground by the WP guru(s)very welcome. Saying that thought the aim is to produce a definative Endal page which after 11 years of being in the media is hard to condense down..if we survive the Deletion vote we will achieve the aim! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.196.223 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nraden

User:Nraden appears to have threatened legal action on his talk page. Bearian 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the heads up. I've added another warning and reported this at WP:ANI. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Bearian 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI policy

Hi, I agree with your additions to this page, regarding merely having a professional or hobby interest. You also made good clarifications, esp. changing "and " to "or". Bearian 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEO featured article

Hi Jehochman, Oh, you changed all references already. I left you a message at my talk page. I am sorry. I was also fed up with some other things here at Wikipedia. The ShareASale AfD and AfD Review, which also relates to the general problem of lack of contributors to the affiliate marketing industry. I made a post that talks about the issues at ReveNews.com today. I am sure you will find it quite interesting.

I commented out one reference of the SEO article. Last paragraph, the Search King case and the publication at Lawmeme. The whole site is down since at least yesterday. I could not find a good alternative for this reference. The other good publications all reference to that one. I could also not find the public records of the case to refer to that. If the site comes up again, simply remove the comment tags. If it does not, we have a minor problem. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a good reference on C|Net and will add it. Don't get depressed about negative things around here. Try to spend some time elevating articles to good or featured status. That's one way to feel happy. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Good that you found one. Just replace the old one. It seems the whole micro site was removed. They may be moved somewhere else.
Regarding the featured article stuff. I try that with the affiliate marketing article where I spent already countless hours on. I got some great comments at the talk page and responded to them and updated the article, but that is not enough and I can't do it by myself.
It is a shame how little content exists in Wikipedia about the subject. The problem is that the industry virtually exists in a bubble. It has its own stuff like news sites, stats and benchmarks, tradeshows, NO organization, you name it. It's rare that somebody outside affiliate marketing reports about the subject. Usually only the bad stories about malware and spam and all that. I try to motivate people to contribute to Wikipedia to educate people about the industry. Not teach, but educate, facts and figures. Right now have most people that are not involved in the industry, wrong or no ideas in their head what affiliate marketing actually is and how it works. Wikipedia is a good place to fix that. Learn the facts first and then make up your mind or digg deeper into the subject matter and listen to insider and outside opinions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you increase the length of the lead, and add a picture to affiliate marketing? With those improvements, we may be able to get that one rated good article. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I am currently busy with the debate to not get the article about ShareASale deleted again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shareasale_(second_nomination)#.5B.5BShareasale.5D.5D. I found another source, Internet Retailer which is outside the affiliate marketing industry as you probably know. And I argued that WP:CORP is being met by ShareASale and also that the sources are reliable and verifiable. Not a New York Times, but I can't change that. Your opinion in this debate would be appreciated. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a picture and extended the lead significantly. The picture is a collection of various companies in the affiliate marketing space. It's not easy to think of something else that would represent the industry well. It's so diverse :). Have a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search engine anti-optimisation through self-promotion on Wikipedia

You may find this interesting in an almost-appalling way:

There are cases where a spammer's misbehaviour on Wikipedia can really backfire on them, especially if they're using multiple accounts. Take a look at this thread by an angry spammer on my talk page at User talk:A. B.#LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING NR 2, in particular my most recent comments. That particular person has continued going around raising a fuss and issuing bogus warnings to various editors even after one of his sites has been blacklisted. He runs the risk of having his organisation's name and the words "spam" and "harassment" float up to the top of any searches on the organisation's name.

Furthermore, while I'm still not sure whether the rumours are true that Google and others consult our blacklist when compiling their own, getting his site blacklisted has also gotten him blacklisted by default at hundreds of other unrelated wikis that run the same MediaWiki software and incorporate our blacklist in their own filtering.

This is an extreme case but I've seen others bring on their own "perfect storm" by their actions and the standard responses they trigger here (documenting misbehaviour on each the talk page for each account used).

I'm not sure I know whether to laugh, smirk or cry for this guy. In any event, the situation he's creating certainly seems like a major waste on his part. --A. B. (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this story. I may use it as an example in future presentations. In a few weeks I will have a chance to ask Matt Cutts directly whether Google could consult the Wikimedia blacklist. If nothing else, this will make them aware that it exists. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just saw the comment when I wanted to comment on our other discussion. I would be surprised if Google (and Yahoo!, MSN and Ask.com) does not use something like the ban list already. At least to raise flags or to penalize the site to some degree. If they are on the Wikipedia ban list, how much of their other inbound links were acquired in a similar fashion? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I will be at SES San Jose this summer. Do you have your presentation there as well? I saw the slides and Barry's post which looked very good. We would also meet in person and can have a nice Wikipedia chat while having a beer. Bill Slawski and Loren Baker are also interested in this stuff. Bill even contributes to Wikipedia as well. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here's the latest from our de-optimisation spammer: "The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard" (Permanent link) . I about choked when I read what he'd written. --A. B. (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, this may turn out to be have been a quasi-Joe job by a former employee. See: User talk:BozMo#disclaimer regarding the workforall spammer. --A. B. (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiley Protocol & NPOV

If I'm going to be accused of POV and have edits reverted on that basis, I would appreciate the courtesy of an explanation and a reference to even one specific example.

Here are my edits that you reverted:

  • Removal of a claim that conventional BHRT only treats symptoms of menopause whereas the Wiley Protocol also promotes restoring or preserving health. There is nothing defensible about this claim. Anyone familiar with BHRT will tell you it's nonsense. A simple Google search will tell you it's nonsense. (This claim was added by Wiley's husband, Nraden, incidentally.)
  • Tags on unsourced claims.
  • Removal of a source that is not reliable (namely, Wiley herself) and does not serve to verify the antecedent claims. See Talk:Wiley protocol#Citations of clinical results.
  • Corrections and additional details on the UT study, with reference.
  • Removal of unsourced statements regarding the ACAM report (as discussed on the talk page) while also balancing out its representation (namely, that it includes positive reports of the Wiley Protocol).

You reverted all of these changes, so is it your position that you consider all of them POV and unjustifiable? Which one of these edits, from a neutral point of view, is not an improvement in the article or not consistent with Wikipedia policy?

I'm COI and open about it (unlike Nraden). If I were on a "smear campaign" or if I didn't welcome scrutiny, I wouldn't be. Neither my COI nor Nraden's say-so make my edits POV. I put a lot of effort into following Wikipedia policies and guidelines (not without mistakes) and in fact I've made edits -- including one that you reverted -- that reflect positively on the Wiley Protocol.

Nraden can rant about me all he wants, but I think my history shows that I deserve at least a little more respect than this. --Debv 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You admit that you are running an anti-Wiley advocacy site. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are advocating against, you can post comments on your own site, or you can post a brief note on the article talk page. Your editing the article is extremely unhelpful and is a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. Please read that guideline again carefully. User:Nraden has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Both of you have significant COI with respect to these articles and should avoid editing them. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI does not forbid editors with outside interest from making contributions, and indeed acknowledges that they can be valuable: "Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage." You say that my edits are "extremely unhelpful". Which are you referring to? Is this simply because Wiley's husband makes repeated and loud personal attacks against me? (And apparently he's now engaged in off-wiki campaigning?) Is that all it takes to silence another editor? Shouldn't content and contributions be the basis for assessing these sorts of things?
If you look at the state of T. S. Wiley before I got involved, you will see that it was highly POV, ignoring the very real controversies that surround the subject. I watched and waited for months to see if anyone would correct this bias, but nobody did. It was just getting worse.
Believe me, I would prefer that neutral editors keep things in check. I completely agree that that is highly preferable (and I would prefer not be involved at all). Unfortunately it doesn't usually work out that way. Still, I usually wait a day or two to see if anyone cleans up the garbage that certain editors inject. Perhaps I need to stand back further. Okay, fine. I will. But my involvement has contributed to the NPOV of these articles. I stand by my history.
Again, if you think my edits are POV, then please explain where and why. I deserve the courtesy of an explanation and the opportunity to correct and learn from any mistakes. Thank you. --Debv 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Use the talk pages to identify any problems, or suggest new references. Or leave me a message and I will have a look. You'll see that I've tagged the articles for NPOV and COI. That should bring more editors around, and also serve as a warning to the public. I wrote parts of the COI guideline, so I am quite familiar with what it says. Believe me, the slow path via the talk page is more effective in the long run. You will see. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I'm confident that with more nonpartisan eyeballs and with a certain other editor under control, these articles will improve with or without me. (And I truly do look forward to being less actively involved.)
The only remaining issue for me is that you have accused me of POV and reverted edits on the grounds that they are POV, but as yet without discussion or explanation. Perhaps it was borne of frustration (understandable when interacting with certain individuals), but I can't at this point imagine anyone disagreeing that this reversion detracts from the quality of the article.
Thank you. --Debv 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Your edits were reverted because I can't be sure if they are NPOV or not, because you have a close connection to the subject and a history of advocating one particular point of view. I don't think you can approach this subject with neutrality. That isn't a negative statement about you. We all have our issues. There are topics that I won't touch because I don't feel that I can be neutral. Please post your edit suggestions to the talk page and let a neutral editor review them. Your edits may be good, and I myself would be happy to check them, but please use the talk page. Thank you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think reversions should be made by assuming bad faith. Please leave the article as it was and let the active editors familiar with the subject decide this. Meanwhile I will, on your advice and with thanks, resign from that group. --Debv 02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
arbitrary break

You are an outspoken a public critic of the article subject. As such, when you make what appear to be conflict of interest edits, there's no reason to assume good faith. When you are affected by COI, that raises suspicion. This is why COI editing is highly discouraged, because it undermines the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read User:Durova/The dark side. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"You are an outspoken a public critic of the article subject. As such, when you make what appear to be conflict of interest edits, there's no reason to assume good faith."
I don't see any policy or guideline that supports this, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. This seems to suggest otherwise: (WP:COI) "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor."
At any rate, I asked and you declined. And that's fine. We may not come to agreement on all points, but this interaction has helped me to understand policies and guidelines better, and how I can better conduct myself here. Thank you. --Debv 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the NLT note

I appreciate your email. I am not surprised, and I received something similar although less explicit. I have left a note on user talk:nraden that explains what would be necessary for unblocking. Let us hope that they take the advice. ··coelacan 07:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enrique A Pollack \ Henry Pollack

Could you please review my new article on this subject and support its inclusion.. I have re-written it and added aditional sources. Thanks Callelinea 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Allow me to introduce myself.

I have not been on wiki very long and so far most of my edits have been in articles related to the LGAT category. There is a common link between LGAT and Scientology in that they have both been accused of being cults. Therefore, I have also edited in a couple of Scientology-related articles. I am not a Scientologist. I actually know very little about what Scientology is, and I prefer it that way. The less I specifically know about a controversial subject, the easier I find it to be objective and maintain NPOV in my edits and comments.

I say this for two reasons. First, because I have an adjenda, that adjenda is NPOV. And second, to acknowledge that I have edited in articles where COFS has also edited. I don't specifically know him, but I am aware of him and of the on-going discussions about him.

That being said, I noticed that you recently posted 4 consecutive warnings to COFS. I have not looked at the nature of the edits, and therefore do not know if he violated any rules or not. Since you warned him, I believe it is safe to assume that he violated rules. If he did, he deserves to be warned or blocked, in whatever measure as befits the offense. I am not, in any way, questioning your right or your decision to warn him. Wiki operates under rules and guidelines and those must be followed.

The reason for my posting here was to give you my personal opinion on the manner of your warnings, as it relates to 4 consecutive warnings. I feel that four consecutive warnings can, and will, be viewed as 4 separate warnings which were sequentially ignored. I believe this can, and will, be used as compound evidence of misconduct on the part of COFS. If you believe that multiple edits across a number of articles qualifies for an escalated level of warning, I would respectfully suggest that you remove the lower warnings and leave the highest level warning which you believe applies.

I see that this situation is being commented on at one of the admin boards. It appears that Justanother is voicing similar concerns there and I did not wish to be perceived as tag-teaming you. I simply wanted to give you my thoughts on how it looks to me as a third party.

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards, Peace in God. -john Lsi john 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I think the warnings were a mistake. This user was pushing POV quite blatantly. In light of past abuses by this user, an immediate block would have been more appropriate. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, you may very well be correct. And whether you issue a single level-4 Final-warning or an immediate block is not something I would even question. I didn't stop by to defend anyone's conduct or to challenge your view of misconduct. Abuse should be dealt with, period.
And, I believe I understand your thinking/reasoning. You warned for each event, which seems proper. My concern is that 4 consecutive warnings could easily be misperceived or misused in the future. Though it demonstrates that you considered the conduct a serious violation, it also gives an appearance of something that didn't happen. Specifically it appears that you were repeatedly warning him and that he was repeatedly ignoring. I wouldn't question a single 4-day block, but I might question 4 consecutive 1-day blocks.
Thanks again for your time. Happy Wiki(ing) Peace in God. Lsi john 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That'll teach me to post a followup without looking around. I see that you already struck down your additional warnings. I hadn't gotten that from your post. *embarassed look* Now that I look even closer, you'd already done that a few minutes before I posted my first message. (I didn't have his page on watch). *really embarrassed look* -Feel free to archive this at will. :/ Lsi john 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't feel embarrassed. Your point was well taken. If somebody needs a higher warning level, I should justify it with comments, rather than doing multiple warnings for multiple edits all at once. You're right about that being potentially unfair. I'd never thought about it like that. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're most kind. Thank you. Lsi john 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I, Durova, award Jehochman the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for a swift and efficient response to a disruptive campaign that may have been a script-driven attempt to carry a business grievance onto Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 08:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Baidu-serp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baidu-serp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tony Sidaway 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I did provide a fair use rational. I think you need to slow down and look before you shoot. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments needed: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization

If you are interested in web development or marketing, please have a look at Search engine optimization Good article and leave comments here. Thanks. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COIN

The anonymous user in question is User:Gibraltarian, who's permanently banned from editing Wikipedia - he's a very long-term abuser, sockpuppeters, spammer etc. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian. He's taken to spamming a variety of pages with bogus complaints. Please don't respond to his comments - just delete them. -- ChrisO 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for creating a mess! Could you note such things in your edit summary, to help people like me. I'm sometimes in need of a clue. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you to ChrisO for reverting the same elsewhere. — Athaenara ✉ 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesliejohn

Wow. That's a great message you left for Lesliejohn. --Ronz 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves

Hi, I requested two moves of newbie pages from articles to their user pages at WP:MOVE. They are Gravnar and Jake frederick. I'm not an admin. Do I need to request an admin to do this, or is it done automatically? Bearian 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged them with {{db-nonsense}}. The admin who looks at them will decide to delete or userify them. I'm not an admin. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Defamatory material"

Sorry, I'm confused -- what was the potentially defamatory thing I'm supposed to have added to the Britt Ekland article? It happens to be absolutely true that she hosted an ELECTRIC BLUE video. I've still got it on tape somewhere, if it matters. Dolmance 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that may be perfectly true, but with biographies we have to be especially careful to cite reliable sources. Watching the video yourself and then posting is original research. Some prudish people might think less of somebody for getting involved with such a video. I don't, but we have to think about the big picture. Jehochman Talk 08:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MUGEN Network of Excellence

Dear Jehochman. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE:

MUGEN Network of Excellence The MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

Through its Joint Programme of Activities, MUGEN aims to: 1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics). 2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools. 3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues. To achieve this goal, MUGEN is bringing together expertise from 14 leading research institutes, 5 major universities and 5 biotechnology companies from seven E.U. member states as well as Switzerland and the US. MUGEN will be co-funded by the EU with 11 M€ over a five year period (2005-2009). MUGEN participants will share information and technology platforms and will develop a coordinated agenda of scientific events in order to communicate their scientific achievements to a wider scientific audience as well as to the general public

Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. Afantitis

Due to lack of references to independent, reliable third party sources, this material cannot be added to Wikipedia. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The company doesn't need to post on here. The ING Group has one of the best websites, so whoever's interested should check it out , www.ing.com

Hi, the best reference in order to have estimation why MUGEN is significant are the scientific articles in peer reviewed journals (more than 500) from MUGEN consortium (