User talk:Jehochman

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

Rollback

May I ask why you reverted Gurch like a vandal here? Reverting without an edit summary is for reverting your own edits or reverting vandalism. I didn't even examine the edit. I would assume good faith from Gurch because that user is an administrator. -- IRP ☎ 00:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Er. Gurch is not an administrator. And that edit is from last November. Do you not have anything better to do, IRP? Majorly talk 00:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken. I looked at the blocks Gurch has made and I see that user has made blocks (which only administrators can do) (see this link). The user may have been desysopped. Has Gurch been desysopped? -- IRP ☎ 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since January 2007... consider looking at the admin list next time. Majorly talk 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So I would assume that Gurch abused administrative tools and had vandalized Wikipedia. Am I right about both? -- IRP ☎ 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No you're wrong about both. Majorly talk 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, would anybody think that I made a bad faith CFD nomination if I nominated Category:Wikipedia administrators for deletion? I was considering doing so because it is redundant to and not as well-functioning as Special:Listadmins. -- IRP ☎ 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd vote delete because user categories are pointless, but expect it to be kept. Majorly talk 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you start from the beginning. What is the underlying motivation for your inquiry. I don't know why Gurch is no longer an admin. Last fall he merged a bunch of policy pages without consensus. I rolled back the edits because it was the fastest way to clean up a huge mess. I left comments in the relevant places explaining my actions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As an administrator, I can make a judgment to do something in a non-standard way for the good of the project. For many months now, nobody complained. The fact that I seem to have gotten away with it *smile*, proves my decision. We can not know what an editor is thinking for certain. We often cannot know if an edit is malicious, or if it just so misguided or clueless that it looks malicious Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you for the useful information. Majorly, I have nominated Category:Wikipedia administrators for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 29. -- IRP ☎ 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Witness Lee article

Greetings,

A single-issue editor with the moniker "Localchurch" has taken it upon himself to push POV editing on articles concerning the local churches and Witness Lee. As this editor is a former church member who left 20+ years ago and is pushing his own version of events, such a, and views Witness Lee as "changing" what the local churches are/were about. This is quite out of line. Even the moniker, "Localchurch," is out of line...the local churches argue that they have no name, and that the "local" word is an adjective; therefore, it should not be capitalized. This is just one small example of many. These articles should reflect what the subjects are about, not what this editor wants them to be about.

If you cannot help, please advise as to whom I should take this to.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you see a problem with particular edits, you should first go through the normal dispute resolution procedures. You may also request help at the neutral point of view noticeboard if you feel the user is pushing an agenda. I have looked at both articles and removed linkspam. Otherwise, I do not see specifically which edits are a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

I have problems with edits and comments like THIS ONE:

My point here is that "the recovery" in Witness Lee's non-theologian-speak refers to two things. First "the recovery" is defined by way of analogy to the recovered Jewish temple which was on much smaller scale than Solomon's temple. So many original Christian truths were lost along the way and are now being "recovered". So "the recovery" refers to the totality of the Christian truths and practices. So in an encyclopedic reference of the type you have presented here, one should not list names of recoverers and then end with "as well as themselves". Themselves does not have a theology or practice. Yet the verbage is consistent with the local church belief that "the recovery" R us. So consequently the local churches refer to themselves as "the recovery" which changes the meaning of the original term. Witness Lee is again not a theologian, but a preacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.99.216 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Localchurch (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:NOR for "Localchurch" to attempt to edit these articles according to his own personal theology. If he wants to found his own church, fine. But the article should reflect what Witness Lee and the "local churches" teach, not what this single-issue editor wants them to teach. Wikipedia is not the place for debating theology. These articles should be descriptive and encyclopedic. I do realize that "Localchurch" needs the benefit of the doubt before I report abuse, so if you could kindly inform him that his "mission" does not conform to Wikipedia policy, it would be appreciated.

I was trying to take a "vacation"...so much for that.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think my talk page is not the best place to have this discussion. Can you try WP:NPOVN. Before doing that, read Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide and be sure to provide diffs as evidence when you file your request for assistance. Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508 FAC

Hey mate! I realize that I've been somewhat of a slacker on Gamma-ray burst lately, but that's because I've been working on GRB 970508. I think you and I both realize how disappointing Wikipedia is when it comes to the field of gamma-ray bursts, so I think you can understand how excited I am to have submitted 970508 to FAC! You're probably pretty busy, but if you're still interested in GRBs, I invite you to leave comments at the FAC. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up, again

[1]- Likely the exact same SPA pretending to be a different person seemingly ignorant of the prior talk page history. Btw, when the talk page was recently deleted and restored, your semi-protection of it was removed. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost irony?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Jehochman,

Uhm, I just saw this and I think you may have overstepped... I've edited alongside both User:Nishidani and User:Ashley kennedy3 and, as even the most cursory glance at User talk:Ashley kennedy3 should make clear, they are very good friends.

User:Nishidani may have a somewhat odd sense of humour at times, but I seriously doubt that User:Ashley kennedy3, himself an academic and sharp enough to understand the ironical undertones of Nishidani's post, would have taken offence.

Please re-consider this block. User:Nishidani is a valuable editor and this kind of misunderstanding might well make him leave Wikipedia for good, which would be a great loss.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 01.04.2009 14:16

Oh, they were drama mongering. That's just as bad. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm... Bad enough for a one-week block? As far as I can tell, this was not WP:DISRUPT. Or am I looking at the wrong policies? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.04.2009 14:22

Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So what policies should we be looking at here? (Just a confused observer). Factsontheground (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT would be a good place to start. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so which part of this policy did Nishidani violate? Factsontheground (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment speaks for itself. It was a needless breach of decorum, designed to inflame an already serious dispute. We do not need that sort of approach to Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice

(Required heads up) Please see here. I hope you'll take this review in the spirit in which I posted it. It's not intended as an attack on you, or an attempt to foment "drama", but I honestly believe that the block went overboard and should be undone or adjusted to 'time served.' Avruch ^T 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I invite any reviews. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, 6/6 reviews (inc. mine) seem to strongly disagree with your reasoning and/or decision. John Carter may not be impartial, but even in that case, that's 5/5. But I agree with Avruch. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, none of you (except Bastique) addressed my concern that the edit was very disruptive. We don't decide based on votes (or voting blocks of friends). We decide based on strength of arguments. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall ever interacting with Nishidani, nor consider that this was a matter of polling - rather, just a measure of consensus. I found close to 0 strength in your argument based on the facts; despite that, I did try to accomodate your view through an unusual interpretation in even suggesting 24 hours as opposed to an immediate unblock. Therefore, I felt your concern was addressed reasonably (although I didn't detail the view to avoid tl:dr) - perhaps you should've considered that before making the comment you did above. IN any case, that's moot now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't condone it outright. I wouldn't have said it, and if I had seen it I might have cautioned Nishidani to tone it down lest he be misinterpreted. I am, as well, very supportive of efforts to rein in disruption in the ARBPIA area. On the other hand, context is still important - in this case, the context of Nishidani's relationship with the other guy and the likely lack of offense taken, as well as Nishidani's clear history as far as this type of thing goes. Anyway, it is resolved now though we disagree on the outcome. No hard feelings, I hope. Avruch ^T 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no hard feelings. In retrospect, I think my reaction was stronger than it should have been because I initially thought Nishidani was taunting somebody. I hate bullying of any sort. I think a short 12 - 24 hour block for egregious breach of decorum would have been about right. Thank you for helping resolve this. It would be good if some of you would counsel Nishidani to tone it down when editing in the "hot zone". Know that I will be equally strict with editors on the other side of the fence. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Jonathan? If I'm anybody's friend in that affair, it's yours. What "voting block", in your opinion, was it that made me unblock Nishidani? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

None this time, though they sometimes do appear, which is why we don't go on straight counts. Is that a hint of affection in your post? I am flattered. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be if I were you. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Jehochman, I admit I still don't understand the comment for which you blocked Nishidani. If your block was a mistake, I think it was an understandable one. I'm relieved to see that Nishidani has been unblocked, though, and hope Nishidani will continue to help develop consensus for guidelines at WT:IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The general idea is that at [{WP:ANI]] we don't suggest other editors commit seppuku and remind them to stuff cotton balls up their arses before doing so. It's impossible to conduct business when that sort of rhetoric is used, and I tend to via talk of suicide seriously or semi-seriously. If people want to say such things to me on my talk page, I might laugh or ignore them, but standards at the village square are different than in the pub. Jehochman ^Talk 06:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How Then Can I Disprove Sockpuppetry

?

What is the Proper Way to Disprove Sockpuppetry?

Is this some sort of catch 22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.248.238 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re suicide

I live in a closed world, in that I edit only in a small corner of wikipedia, don't follow arbitration cases unless compelled to, and knew nothing about suicide threats, which I now learn are apparently not infrequent. That makes your reaction, as administrator, not only more comprehensible to someone like me, (who tends for professional reasons to be very careful about tone, context and language, and presumes one's interlocutors, few in number, understand where I am coming from), but also far more justified. Indeed, in retrospect, despite my initial grief, you've gone several notches up in my estimation. Thanks therefore for the snark or irony link. If I come back, I'll keep that in mind. It was a profound misreading, but administrators can't be expected, with the burden of unpaid labour they must work through, to catch every nuance in a small act played out at the edges of the vast theatre that is wikipedia. So, no harm done, and thanks for the snark. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AdSense

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded for the AdSense prank. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

image removal

Howdy. I've removed this image from the Search engine optimization and Search engine results page articles as there appears to be a fairly overt racial slur in the results illustrated - in the Wikipedia result as luck would have it. Would you mind re-loading a new one or if I loaded one over it before restoring it to the articles? Kuru ^talk 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Go ahead and create a new one. Use any search you like. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Typical-serp.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Typical-serp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added further comment to the discussion. I'm afraid the fact that screenshot was taken of a query done capturing the exact two-minute window that the slur was present on WP. As the uploader you deserve a chance to explain how that could have happened. LeadSongDog come howl 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Explained here. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Google seems to have tweaked their spider to update cache more often now, so at least something good came of it.LeadSongDog come howl 15:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)