User talk:Jehochman

Leave a new message.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - the mysterious future

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 and leave comments here. Thanks. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SEO featured article

I did not know that you were working on this for so long. Well, I left a comment to support the nomination. It was a bumpy ride, wasn't it? SEO has at least some coverage by the big media. Affiliate marketing if unfortunately not as lucky. References outside the industry are scarce. It would be great, if you could help me a little with the article to make it up to "good article" after the SEO article was accepted as featured. I can be also proud a bit, because some content came from me. I was more active at the talk page though. Well, it's a start. :) Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Additional Comment. Jonathan, I also emailed Danny Sullivan, Aaron Wall, Rand Fishkin, Jaimie Sirovich, Michael Gray, Kris Jones, Liana (Li) Evans, Ahmed Bilal, Rhea Drysdale, Loren Baker, Raj Dash, Gemme van Hasselt, Jessica Bowman, Cameron Olthuis, Tetsuto Yabuki aka Halfdeck, Matt McGee and Andy Beard. If only a few more respond, great. This will reinforce the authority and quality of the article. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Go easy. If you look at WP:CANVASS we need to be careful not to overdo it, or pick people based on specific views we know them to hold. Also, users who aren't experienced Wikipedians won't carry much weight, if any. We are doing nicely already and are on track to get featured article. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going broad to get people with different SEO/SEM background to comment. Some people I even disagree with on almost every subject :). Some are social media guys, affiliate marketers, SEMs, journalists, white hat, gray hat and dark gray hat (:)) SEO. Most are not professional SEO who could be seen as biased, but each of them knows the subject enough to provide valueable comments and feedback. I asked them to leave their comments at the review page about the quality of the references used in the article. On the article itself too, if they want to, but that is up to each of the people themselves. They should only add a comment themselves if they have a Wikipedia account already. I told them to send the comments to me, if they don't. Some do have one for sure, but not checking in too often so a message on their talk page will do no good. I did not ask anybody to vote on anything. I can provide you with the copy of the email I sent, if you would like to. The people who care at least about who is cited about what in any publication will hopefully comment on that and the rest I don't care. I actually hope that at the end of this maybe some other and may be even better references surface. I could have asked my mom about her oppinion, but she does not even know what SEO is :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we pretty much have a consensus already. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. With SES China, SES Italy and the upcoming SMX are most of the people I wrote to busy anyway. I hoped for 2-3 additional opinions, which would not hurt. What is the next step after that btw.? I never spent time on finding that out. The quality of the articles in affiliate marketing need all way too much work to even start thinking about it :(. Again, good job Jonathan, I know how much work it is. It's a hell of a lot more work than a simple blog post. I can tell you that hehe. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 (http://www.mugen-noe.org/index.php?MODULE=bce/application/pages&Branch=N_N0000000006_N0000001020)

Regarding third party sources, MUGEN is referred from the following websites:

• European Bioinformatics Institute http://www.ebi.ac.uk/microarray/mugen/. • SMEs go Health http://www.smesgolifesciences.be/common/events_details.asp?evid=105 • Prime http://www.prime-eu.org/docs/EuroMouse/MUGEN.ppt • EUCOMM http://www.eucomm.org/info/ • Centre d’Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy (CIML) http://www.ciml.univ-mrs.fr/Liens/Science.htm • InterPhenome Portal http://www.interphenome.org/links.html

This is just a small list from scientific websites. Afantitis

Common Cause

Could we finally ban IP address 208.201.146.137 from editing? They have made four separate edits to Common Cause since their last warning not to, which was their second warning on this issue. Do Administrators actually do this sort of thing, or do they just bask in the glory of being administrators? XINOPH | TALK 11:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of basking. Seriously, some of these edits are pretty gnomish. There's a difference between spinning an article and just maintaining some non-controversial facts. Also, consider that they may have 50 people working in that office going through a single router that has one IP address. They may just be clueless. We might try to contact them and offer to help by explaining that they should use the article talk page to request changes instead of creating the appearance (and possible the fact) of conflict of interest. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability - blogs

The bias against blogs is very great, even when published by an expert. I have come across it myself. Specifically when the blog is written by a professional historian or other expert in the subject many do not accept it as a source quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability - blogs. I wonder if it might be a good idea to emphasize that quoting a blog if its written by a professional researcher etc is acceptable. OF course if you read the article carefully it clearly implies that such blogs are ok, however I have met many who would deny that.

Helliumballoon, I presume. I recently made a few little edits to WP:V to hopefully clarify that. The media is unimportant. What matters is the level of editorial control, review, fact checking and responsibility. Blogs are often, but not always, deficient. We need to help educate people that there are legitimate blogs in the world.

By the way, I think you are fighting a losing battle, and probably wrong too, with that legal article being discussed over at WP:COIN. You can improve your Wiki-cred by backing down and following the good advice you are being given over there. Try to find a common understanding with your opponents by explaining your situation and asking them what you should do. Just my 2 cents... Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have let the other editors do as they seem fit. I only wish to emphasize the importance of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. A minority of blogs are written by experts in their field. However in my discussions it seemed that even the ones in this category were written off as 'just blogs' and unworthy. (This issue was tangential to what was going on in the aforementioned article.) Heliumballoon 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Catanich

Amenable to your suggestion. Copied your note to WP:COIN#User:Catanich 2 with request for input on how to proceed. Would appreciate it if you would respond there. Thanks! --Shirahadasha 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm consulting with Netsnipe, who extended the original block to indefinite. --Shirahadasha 06:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley etc.

I've been notified of a current controversy regarding onefortyone and his allegations against myself. I am not sure where to start with all this. His main allegation from everything he has posted seems to be that I am a sock of Ted Wilkes thus of DW. Not sure how to answer that except that if you or anyone else dealing with this situation brought to you wish to know any information about me or from me feel free to ask. I'll start by endorsing a checkuser of my IP address per other users - particulary those above. If you wish to address me in email let me know and we can work that out. CharlesMatthews, Flonight and other administrators have worked with me in the past and can answer some questions. Please check the article in question Elvis Presley for the reasoning behind what myself-Rikstar-and Steve along with others have been doing and where we see this going. With that - again I am fully open to any questions you may have either through email or here or elsewhere. --Northmeister 05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't put too much faith in the allegations against you, and I don't think anyone else does either. I suggest you avoid confrontation with Onefortyone. Let the community handle any problems. You should look at WP:DR and use those avenues first if you get into editing conflicts with other users. You may also want to pledge to yourself that you will never do more than one revert. I've done this, and it helps me avoid stress. Wikipedia is a very big place. There are so many things to work on, there's no point in getting bogged down with content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think your advice makes perfect sense. --Northmeister 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response is welcome

I think you should know, if you're not already aware, that I am expressing (moderate) criticism of your actions on my talk page. --Debv 08:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deb, I've seen much worse! You seem to be on the right track. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

out of hand reverts of sourced content

I added sourced content to the rape article. I am trying to balance this article so that the feminist falsehoods, fraud and misrepresentation about rape as shown in so many sources from WITHIN feminism are corrected. Please spare me reactive reverts. Anacapa 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring content like the following [1]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content.Anacapa 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

I'd like you to remove the COI and Neutrality templates as we seem to have settled into an agreement to only voice our thoughts on the discussion page and leave the edits to others. I don't either article (T.S. Wiley or The Wiley Protocol) are complete, but they're OK for the time being. Neil Raden 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at these articles in detail this week, but you could make this suggestion on the talk page, and allow one of the uninvolved editors to make that change. I wouldn't object if somebody else agrees to do it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You are pandering to point of view by censoring, slandering and otherwise misrepresenting me to protect false, fruadulent and misrepresentative feminist ideologies/political agendas. I use sourced content, I discuss many of my edits in advance and the content I add/edit is intended to allow balanced factual representation of issues that gender-feminists have been accused (by other feminists) of routinely falsifying, misrepresenting and/or censoring. If you have particular concerns, I will be glad to discuss them with you, but you have no right warn me when I am following legitimate NPOV policies, making bold but not scurrilous edits and challenging widely known reverse-sexist feminist fearmongering on issues like rape.

I am going to bring in an administrator now to look my edits over to make sure they comply with wiki policy. In the meantime, I will refrain from edits to the rape page. However, I expect these false accusations and the usual totalitarian tactics that are so common on feminism-related articles to stop now. As anyone can see from a glance at the latest attempt I made to correct reverse sexist censorship about female forms of rape on the rape discussion page, I am making a good faith attempt to be balanced. Can you say the same about yourself vis a vis misandric feminist political or ideological agendas?

As I said before, you have no right to claim point of view when you are yourself censoring sourced content which refers the following [2]. This rape article is full of well-documented falsehoods and misrepresentations from a group of political ideologues trying to pander to their pov about the topic. I have every right to be bold as long as I bring in sourced content. Just because you don't LIKE this content doesn't mean it is bad content.Anacapa 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Anacapa 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)