User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page.

religioustolerance.org

I don't think there was any concerted linkspamming going on for that site; rather, especially in the early days of Wikipedia, it was one of the few sites that contained information about a lot of different small religious groups and thus got used as a convenient 'more info' link by people writing the earlier versions of many articles.

It's similar to many pages' having links to IMDB despite IMDB not being the most reliable source - it's a convenient and attractive link target if the Wikipedia author isn't being all that careful about good sourcing.

It's the typical Wikipedia problem - Wikipedia being the condensed result of the top 20 Google hits for any topic, regardless of those sites' quality. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha. So the site has become Wikipedia-specific meme. What's so peculiar is that they are very heavily linked from Wikipedia, but not from many other places. How odd, but the internet is a big place so improbable things are bound to happen. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman -

I noticed your comments at the AfD for the religioustolerance.org article. In case you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in this thread: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ReligiousTolerance.Org.

Although the article survived AfD, that does not convey reliability for its wide usage on Wikipedia. The question of religioustolerance.org as a source comes up regularly (it's been discussed several times in various forums, including a dedicated page here: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org).

Since there is currently a thread running at the RS noticeboard, it seems like a good idea to seek some sort of consensus statement that can be linked when questions come up in the future regarding the use of that site as a source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: HeroEngine

While the article might need a bit of cleanup and expansion, I don't get a sense that Elonka was violating COI; she was just trying to clean up the article. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't merely reverting vandalism. She removed maintenance tags. Given the COI problems she's had in the past, I'd expect her to be much more careful not to create the appearance of COI. She could easily use talk pages to suggest edits and allow a neutral editor to make the changes. Example of this method. She setting a poor example and bringing the project into disrepute. If you've checked the article and are sure the content is neutral, then I don't have a problem with you removing the COI tag. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not looking for her head on a spike, just some sort of recognition that her edit wasn't best practices and that she'll be smarter going forward. We need good admins who can stop troublemaking. She should not leave herself vulnerable to criticism because that reduces her effectiveness as an administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you leave a note on her talk page to say this rather than adding a banner to the article; those things take up unnecessary space and do minimal good in many cases. (Not to mention the fact the Elonka's last edit to the article was a week ago.) —Giggy 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have handled a lot of cases at WP:COIN. When we know that a company employee has edited an article about their own stuff, we (COIN partrollers) tag it. As soon as an uninvolved editor reviews the article, they are free to remove the tag. I have left Elonka notes, and I think the issue has been understood. Jehochman ^Talk 10:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me

Thank you, Mr. Jehochman for unblocking me, because I didn't know that deleting of my talk page is a violation so thank you again..... thank you again--Gabriel mark (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion/inclusion of 3tera

• 3tera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I am writing concerning the deletion of a recent article I submitted about 3tera. It was removed as "blatant advertising". While undoubtedly 3tera is a commercial enterprise, entries about companies does not seem to be inconsistent with Wikipedia. There are many thousands of entries for companies along with a description of their services.

In the case of 3tera, they are clearly a pioneer in utility/cloud computing space, clearly meet the notability requirement (included are citations from Linux World, Inc Magazine and Forrester Research, among others) and deserving of mention. Google shows over 5000 brand searches for 3tera every month.

I am having a hard time understanding the distinction between 3tera and Redhat Linux, for example. I certainly don't understand how an article for a company like Flexiscale, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexiscale can be OK and yet a 3tera submission is viewed as blatant advertising.

Clearly I welcome any additions, edits or contributions regarding 3tera, but it seems clear that an article about them is appropriate and that this should be referenced in the sections about utility computing and cloud computing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Stein (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist messages

I do hope this is some sort of joke. :-D --Wikiacc (¶) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, somebody asked me to post it, and though I disagree with watchlist messages, I felt that their good faith request should be honored. I have just nominated the watchlist messages page for deletion. Please do comment! Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Take it to DRV, but I'm standing by the close. It's a textbook WP:SNOW action. XFD is not to force non-deletion changes. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I was told that we cannot delete MediaWiki pages, but we certainly can blank them. It seems like you are supporting the rules for the sake of rules, rather than doing what is best for the project. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the page is beginning to repeat itself with suggestions, with each user starting their own section. I thought of writing a summary of all the main points on the talk page under a single section, and people can briefly comment on whether they agree or disagree. What do you think? It would help us to predict what will happen and what to do next. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, do not take it to DRV. From a DRV perspective "merge" is the same as "keep", so DRV clearly won't care about the different keep with limits opinions; they will be treated as 100% keep. Take it to an RfC, or better yet go back to the talk page and keep working until consensus is reached. GRBerry 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SA/Elonka

You posted at SA's talk page "Hi, Elonka. I am uncomfortable with you blocking this editor and request that you not undertake any further administrative actions with respect to them. I think you are insufficiently objective to use tools in this instance." SA has repeatedly attacked administrators as any and all of 1) unsuitable to administer, 2) involved, 3) vandals if they prove that they are willing to sanction him. This was recently on ANI, where there was a clear administrative consensus that Elonka is acting reasonably - even you agreed that before the thread ended. Repeating SA's attack memes isn't a great idea, and will just end up encouraging him. GRBerry 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We have enough administrators that somebody uninvolved can rotate in and block SA. That said, repeated short blocks are not a good strategy. SA has been handled very badly all along. A long series of block has been placed, yet there has been no improvement whatsoever. Continuing that sequence is just creating drama without creating benefit. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the community is ready for a long block or topic ban for him? I don't think the community is ready for a long block. But I could be wrong; he has been getting less visible support than he used to. The short block strategy does appear to have the effect of eliminating opposition to a stronger remedy, if we can figure out what a good one would be. I definitely believe that your approach has not been creating any benefit. So we need a new approach to get SA to actually change his behavior. I don't have any good ideas myself. GRBerry 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout' that. Let me refactor the comment that offends you. No harm intended, I just wish all of the drama would cease :/ It's good that we are on the same page about the primary issue, though. We have been discussing this off-Wiki for a while, among quite a few administrators, who are fed up with the inaction and the cuddling that occurs whenever SA or any of the gang is blocked for any extended duration. Short blocks are ineffective but are short enough to fly under the radar -- i.e. there doesn't need to be an ANI thread regarding it that only fuels the drama more. seicer | talk | contribs 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help, really, really. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I only had a basic, basic draft up. SA has went on a "wikibreak." seicer | talk | contribs 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adice

I don't know what an adice is, but since you went to Yale, I'll just pretend to understand this as "advice", and publicly mock you at the next regatta. I've replied to your remarks, and don't know what else to add, except that, as a fellow programmer, I can suggest that it's a mistake to apply the so-called "New Jersey method" to human relations. Not your mistake, but perhaps a legitimate criticism of the project. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That was as inevitable as the sun rising in the East, which only makes the community's impatience all the more remarkable. Do you read anything I write or do your eyes just glaze over?[1] I suppose it's just as well to start with the sinners and work my way back to the saints, but I'm no Saint Peter. I think I'll go alphabetically from here on out. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) is not a page where one would normally expect consensus to develop, but in fact it has, around a tangential issue. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. You may want to review the diff and the guideline, and consider striking the comment. Jd2718 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. I am comfortable with my remarks. Jehochman ^Talk 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Please don't use the snowball clause as a reasoning for closing RfAs where the contributor is not a new user. The primary purpose of the snowball clause is to avoid driving new users, who don't understand the RfA mechanism, off the project. Shalom is clearly not one of those cases, and while I agree that the RfA is unlikely to pass at this point, please let him withdraw if he wishes to do so. Ral315 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, please do not use the rollback tool to revert good-faith edits. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time, I did not think Giggy's edit was good faith, because they did not leave me any sort of message. Sorry if I have misunderstood the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the close due to your objection. If anyone objects to a WP:SNOW action, then it should be undone. It is unwise to let this pile on continue because it will result in hurt feelings and greater strife within the community. Can you point me to the relevant discussion where this distinction between new and established users is explained? I would like further information about that. Jehochman ^Talk 05:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy was one of the co-nominators of the RfA, but if you didn't realize that I can see you might not see good faith. No big deal.

I'm not sure if there is really a policy on the snowball clause, but my experience is that it can inflame the situation with some experienced users; more than a few users have had their RfAs snowballed, then reverted the closing, sparking an edit war. In other cases, there's a disagreement as to whether it should be snowballed, and other users revert it, sparking an edit war. For a different kind of example, there was an RfA I closed at about 60% support as "SNOW" when the user said he was leaving Wikipedia; it turned out that he was staying, wanted the RfA to continue, and he actually passed.

As a general rule, unless those commenting are getting extremely out of hand (i.e. a serious argument, wild accusations, etc.), I think RfAs of experienced users should be allowed to continue until they withdraw. It might also be worth bringing up on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, to see if other users agree. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Update, seeing you reverted) If you have no objections, I'll bring it up on the bureaucrats' noticeboard; RfA regulars usually pay attention there, and their opinion would probably be helpful. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It may help to create documentation for those who are new to this, like me. This is only the second or third RFA that I've (snow) closed. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of people disagree on what SNOW should constitute.  :) You might want to look at WP:NOTNOW, which is a better way to phrase it if you're telling someone you snowed an RfA. I really think NOTNOW should replace SNOW, as it's much more helpful in my opinion. Also, check out a brief discussion of SNOW from last year that I think is helpful for determining when to SNOW an RfA. Ral315 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing????????

There's massive evidence linking BlueGoblin to numerous sock accounts, but of course he's going to deny it. Have you asked East about the evidence? Don't just unblock users without knowing the full facts which you have done in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. I am taking this to RFCU, and if there is massive socking, we are going to block ALL the accounts, not just one. Patience. If things are as you say, they will all be blocked shortly. If not, an innocent user is saved. If there is massive evidence of socking, surely there would be a WP:RFCU or WP:SSP report documenting all of it, with a prominent link in the block notice.

All that aside, if this account goes one step out of line, feel free to reblock it for any sort of bad behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, socking doesn't have to have an SSP or RFCU report. The findings were made because of the IRC IP's used. Chris and BG used the same IP, they both identified and had Wikimedia cloaks corresponding to their respective accounts. Their useragents are also exactly the same. It's fairly clear cut evidence that they're socks, yet you unblock without getting involved in any discussion about it? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I read through the evidence and already saw what you are telling me, and I believe East718. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegoblin7 will resolve the matter. I am watching the user's talk page, as are many others. If they step one inch out of line, they will be reblocked. Blocks are to prevent harm. No harm is going to occur. Please be slightly patient and this matter will be completely resolved. If there was serious socking, why did folks wait to file WP:RFCU? It's important to work step by step, to document evidence and to do a thorough job. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I forward you the emails?There's a lot of them.(I have no idea why I was contacted)But I need to know your email address.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on to them for a moment. Are you suggesting sock puppetry, or do you think there is no socking here? Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's highly confusing situation. I received emails from two addresses both claiming to be BG7.One:bluegoblin@hotmail.co.uk. Two:bluegoblin7@hotmail.co.uk. During the ANI thread I received emails mocking me trolling etc that confessed guilt but mocked me saying nobody believed me etc. The emails from Chris were more "help me please" emails.But before that he did trolling and a legal threat as well. The emails from "BG7" alleged BG7 had hacked Chem's acct on on another wiki and made socks spreading suspicion to here getting Chem blocked indef as a sock of Chris19910. The emails basically said that BG7 framed Chem. It could be a impersonator or BG7 really does: BG7=Chem=Chris. But I don't know....it's one of the most confusing things I've ever been mucked up in. I'm still wondering why I was contacted with all this.It's up to the checkusers Jehochman. Still the evidence submitted by East718 made me believe. I believe BG7 is the same person as Chris19910 and Chemistrygeek(A sock of Chris)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you know! Checkuser came back  Unrelated. Good thing I unblocked the user before a big shitstorm developed. When you combine IRC with a faulty sock block, that could have really set off a riot. Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Promethean

Then I suggest you delete that particular information from his user page as well. Certainly, I would not have disclosed that information had he not done it himself.--Atlan (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"I’m a 17 Yr old Australian bloke. I'm presently studying Yr 11," he says. I think that's OK. In that case, your statement could have been received as a personal attack, so it's best to have been removed. Feel free to restate your argument. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I obviously should have read better. Also, why delete the entire message? I replaced it partially.--Atlan (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I could have redacted part of the message, I suppose, but it seemed better to remove the whole thing, tell you, and let you reformulate the message the way you liked since you appeared to still be online. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced?

I think you may have put this comment in the wrong place diff. It doesn't make a lot of sense on WT:AN in a new section of it's own. Just a heads up. James086^{Talk | Email} 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the clue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

wpcite and FF3

Hi! I found your wpcite add-on very useful under Firefox 2. Since upgrading to FF3 I can't get it to run: trying to install it from the download link on your user page tells me:

wpcite 0.1.4.4 could not be installed because it is not compatible with Firefox 3.0.

Now I'm not afraid to tinker with code so I tried to adjust the version number in the install.rdf file, which I read is a trick that allows many add-ons to run. Indeed, this allowed wpcite to start, but on choosing the right-click menu option on any webpage I get the error:

The file jar:file:///C:/Program Files/Firefox3/chrome/browser.jar!/content/browser/null cannot be found. Please check the location and try again.

which has stumped me. I don't know much about Java and less about the workings of Firefox (VB and Perl used to be my toys). I may even have re-zipped the xpi wrongly. Is it possible you could fix it, or give me a pointer to what may be wrong, please? I'm surprised no-one else has commented about this as it's such a useful tool - can I be the only one for whom it's not working under FF3?  —SMALLJIM  16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I will restore your comment, but it's bizarre that you would complain about one comment when you removed all of mine. Please don't continue to attack me. I have really had enough of it, as I hope you can see from my posts tonight. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should restore the posts yourself, but please do not blank any more comments. You are involved in this, given what I've been told about your posts on the case. I haven't seen them myself, but they sound pretty unpleasant and biased. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)