User talk:Jehochman

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

talk:quantum cryptography

Hello Jehochman, I appreciate you helping me in the past, and I come to you requesting a little bit more. I recently reverted an edit by a user (page: quantum cryptography) because I consider it to be dubious and away from the mainstream. He claims there are valid 'man-in-the-middle' attacks for a quantum cryptographic system, and deleted a large section of article devoted to explaining why they are not possible. You can read the talk page, as I explained to him why his edit doesn't belong, and then he reverted my edit. So rather than get into an "undo" war, I would like to divert this to an administrator for arbitration. Thank you. --MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need is mediation, not arbitration, or perhaps third opinion. Can you show some "diffs" where the editor is deleting material? Whatever you do, don't battle with them. Let them have their way, temporarily, and we'll get it sorted out. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I was unclear about the terms. [1]Here is a diff of his deletions, and [2]here is a link to the diff of 2 changes that I made: first reverting his deletion, then I deleted the last paragraph of the section because it is an unreasonable method to break a quantum encryption protocol, for reasons I specified in the talk section.

Also, I'm not very good at making links, as you can probably tell. How would i make an internal link to that diff page?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact User:Elonka and ask her to read the article. She is Elonka Dunin. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, I'm not real impressed with Wikipedia's mediation policy. It's been a week since i raised this issue and since then the article has been edited a bunch of times despite the erroneous change that I dispute. I am better off, it seems, to just get into an edit war with someone rather than come to an admin for a thid opinion. Is this what all mediation is like?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Have you tried WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? I am not a mediation specialist. Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Absidy et al.

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Either the editor will behave or they will give us definitive proof that they need to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Randy B

You are either a truly lovely man or are choosing to protect an editor that shouldn't be protected. You chose to delete my comment to him in which I expressed concern that he mis-quoted me; in other words, he put into quotes a statement in which he said that I made (but didn't). I personally do not think that such editors should be protected. Other people should see that he seemingly showing bad faith on wikipedia. Then, another editor chose to defend Randy B by saying that I was "baiting" him. "Baiting" does not mean expressing concern about making quotes up out of thin air. My concern was real, and yet, for unknown reasons, you and other editors are protecting/defending an editor that perhaps should not be protected or defended...or worse, perhaps you are choosing to be complicate in these shenanigans. I want to AGF. Please tell me why I should. DanaUllman^Talk 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should not look at Wikipedia as a battleground where ideas clash and various editors struggle for the primacy of their beliefs. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, unfortunately Wikipedia is becoming a battle ground. As you can see in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless. If it is a WP:DUCK it is a duck and we should not WP:HORSE it but try to deal with the problem before it escalates itself beyond control. And this is not just a few editors' POV but the whole Internet community sees us in such light. Igor Berger (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman...first, I have not told you yet, but you're one of the few people here who is transparent...and I have a great respect for those fellow editors who are transparent. I feel much more comfortable disagreeing (or agreeing) with a real person than an anonymous person. To clarify my intentions, I am not interested in the "primacy of beliefs." I am academically-oriented, and I'm interested in helping to create NPOV info on specific subjects that shows various viewpoints and that is notable and reliable. I do not want just "positive" info, but of the "negative" or skeptical info, it should be accurate and notable. What doesn't work is when editors are not honest and when other editors defend or protect them. Please give me a reason that I should not undo your deleting of the real and serious concerns that I expressed to Randy B. If you need to tell me something privately, please email me. DanaUllman^Talk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate Homeopathy as a featured article candidate and use the feedback from that process to improve the article. Once an article reaches FA status, it is much harder for drive-by POV pushers to damage the article. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Your posts to my user talk were a little confusing at first. Then I realized you might have thought it was a surprise. If you like, tell Danny I can bring in Virgil Griffith too. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you hadn't mentioned it before. Could you ask Virgil if he would license the Wikiscanner code? I could arrange hosting and constant maintenance. The database hasn't been updated since August. Keeping the thing running and paying for hosting is a non-trivial challenge, but I think I see a way to do it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm...e-mail me. The decision is up to him and it's hosted independently. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help! Vietnam War article

Hi Jehochman, I'm concerned about the user CompScientist's recent edits to the Vietnam War page - please have a look. Thank you! twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Jehochman, can you please take a look at a short essay that I have written about this topic User:Igorberger/Conflict of interest. I know we talked about this at lengh at AN when the issue was brought up by one editor about 3 months ago, but it keeps creeping back to us. Should we not have some sort of official policy or guidelines to avoid any problems or false accusations that may develop because of the misperseption of what constitutes WP:COI. There are many consultants, lawyers and other professional editors on Wikipedia. Do we just go on a witch hunt and start hanging all of them? This could be a serious problem unless we define some guiddelines as to what is permisable by the community and what is not. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:COI and Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and User:Durova/The dark side and Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the article links. I am glad we have precedence in this matter, and we do not chase professional people away. Spending countless hours on Wikipedia editing just to sell a Wikipedia articles is not even a financially viable opportunity. One would make much more money doing other work! One must really love Wikipedia to keep staying around, dealing with all this wikidrama, and keep building it for everyone to learn from and enjoy. Thank you, 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)

Hello

You have put a completely incorrect interpretation of the RfCU on the article probation page. Unprovoked/RDOlivaw/DrEightyEight are one user, that's old old news. There was no connection made between this user and MC or The Tutor, nor was a connection proven between MC and The Tutor. MC is being vanished, per his own request. The Tutor is not blocked. You should correct this ASAP. —Whig (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. MC was not proven to be TT. The connection has been denied. AGF, and please strike this nonsense. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting warmer, but you're still in the wrong. Repeating accusations like that is not helpful. —Whig (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think you are doing the wrong thing here. I wish you would remove your statement until you can ascertain the facts. You are not making a false statement now, but you are imputing bad faith to a real person and to a new editor when no accusations of abusing sock puppet accounts has been proven. I ask you again to strike it or we should seek some kind of dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted to WP:AN. —Whig (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you do not seem to respect the ArbCom's handling of the prior matter in which you were careless and caused problems, I am hopeful that it will not be necessary for us to return to that forum. I believe this is a serious matter which should be escalated as quickly as necessary to prevent the loss of a valuable new contributor. —Whig (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User Jupiter Optimus Maximus

Just on a hunch, I wonder if you might check out User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk). He appeared in late February, 2008, about the time Illustrious One was blocked, and shares many characteristics, including a fascination with categories. I'm not entirely convinced they're the same, but the stars are starting to align. Elphion (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously a sock. I think you need to gather a few diffs and file a request at WP:RFCU. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed. (I am not an admin, and have never been through something like this before.) I read the instructions at WP:RFCU but nothing seemed to fit precisely. I have assembled some diffs here: User:Elphion/Auxiliary. I'm not sure whether these constitute the evidence they're looking for. Elphion (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not concrete evidence. Sit tight. They will undo themselves soon enough if they are in fact engaging in sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MC

Thanks, I got distracted by the WP:RTV issue, the block is now in place. Dreadstar † 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCommonSense

I invite you to add [[Category:WikiCommonSense]] on your user page because you are one of the WikiCommonSense editors. If many editors edit in such matter we will be more productive and worry less about vandalism and other disruptive issues at Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeh akuse

I just looked at Jsmith_51389's contribs and compared them to those of Jeh akuse ... you're not the only one who hears quacking. Dunno if a checkuser would do any good ... last time Jsmith edited was in December '07. I have to admit, though, I was thisclose to deleting the unblock template and locking down his userspace ... the "request" was clearly abusive. Blueboy96 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsmith 51389. It helps to nail down the sock puppetry and scan for sleeper accounts. December 07 may be recent enough. Checkuser will help us deal with future socks more quickly. This piqued my interest because the username is similar to mine. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed ... time for a community ban, I think. Blueboy96 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies was just nominated for AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_Strategies You may want to comment on it. Igor Berger (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So vote! Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope the main page does not get nominated next..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hey, I just saw all of this at MastCell's talk page. I haven't dipped in to those pages (and won't), but I've worked on four featured articles and multiple other articles with Eubulides, and he is one of our finest, fairest, most knowledgeable and most civil, FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. We could use more editors like that. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that thread: EBDCM pre-emptively stated he was "leery" of having me review it, because I apparently share a professional degree with Eubulides ([3]) and I'm "skeptical" of complementary and alternative medicine. I would have hoped that my history is sufficient to make clear that I don't dismiss chiropractic or subscribe to any sort of MD-vs-DC dynamic, and that my view of alt-med is much more nuanced than "skepticism". But such is life. Anyhow, it's probably better someone else handle it - I have a very high impression of Eubulides from work he's done cleaning up a series of challenging and controversial (but important) articles on vaccination and autism, and I've not seen him get flustered very easily. I also think EBDCM has gone overboard based on the diffs cited on my talk page as well as others evident at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is my opinion - I'm going to formally ask that you review Eubulides' complaint from my talk page, since I have too many real and/or perceived biases, apparently, to do so effectively myself. Would you be willing to look at it? If not, I'll probably put it up to the other admins on the homeopathy probation list. MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can look at it tomorrow. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Sorry for dragging you in. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.101.89.150#Warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive367#civility_problems_and_copyright_violations_and_exposed_a_person.27s_real_name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:EBDCM_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_.28Result:_protected.29

Here is some background information. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196360552

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=196572637

The two main chiropractic articles were on probation but each tag was removed by involved editors. QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked EBDCM for one week. If problems resume, please file a user conduct requests for comment. Thank you for your patience. The evidence presentation was well organized and convincing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If I make a user conduct requests for comment I could be attacked for doing that. For example, I gave a proper notification to I'clast and I was ganged up on.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

The Quackwatch article is under probation[10] and I'clast has edited the article when it is still under probation.[11][12][13] QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you handled that, Jehochman. You might recall two things: 1) I spoke up on the original homeopathy thread, saying that we needed to apply sanctions equally to some of our rudest regular editors and the newer editors, and 2) you might remember some of the evidence from the Z ArbCom, showing the very civil and patient conduct and adherence to AGF of the regulars on the talk pages of those articles. Eubulides was one of those patient and civil editors; he is not one of our "regular" problematic editors, who sometimes contribute to inflammation on the controversial articles by failing to adhere to AGF or civility. In our attempts to be fair on those articles, we shouldn't ensnare and entangle our hard working, productive, civil editors in time-consuming dispute resolution. We need the good ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I always consider the reliability of the source when evaluating any sort of accusations. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation&curid=15504179&diff=197230975&oldid=196970059 I gave a proper notification and now it was removed without any justification. It smacks point which is a violation of the probation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I just wandered into a mess, supposedly related to chiropractic. [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for a 30 day block from editng Wikipedia

WikiDrama that is not productive, please go edit articles instead

I am really seriouce. If I get a topic ban I may get in trouble, and I do not want to risk having a problem. So I rather get a 30 day block, and take a wikibreak. Then I can come back and start fresh! Igor Berger (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) We don't block on request. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Well than I do not agree with WP: ban! You should bring the case to ArbCom! Or you can impose the ban, but I may wind up violating it, not intentionally of course. Wikipedia is very adictive, it is like a drug! Igor Berger (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Keep the discussion in one place, please. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC) So, what has been decided? Because I do not see all admins are coming to an agreement in the ANI thread. And as policy states to exercise a community ban it must not have an opposing admin, and it clearly does. So please take this issue to ArbCom. Because disallowing a user from commenting in Wikipedia space is censorship! Igor Berger (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an experiment in unlimited free speech. If the community feels that your comment are unhelpful, they can censor you however may be necessary to promote the development of a high quality online encyclopedia. Please orient yourself to reality. It will help you. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, I am not naive to thin Wikipedia is not censored. It is like saying Google does no Evil. Wikipedia is censored. But by censoring the building of consensus in Wikipedia namespace we are suppresing POVs of conserned editors. Wikipedia NPOV is a collection of POV's not POVs interpeted by a few people based on their cultural and social economic backrgrownd and believes. Wikipedia is International but its policy is of conservative mentality! Igor Berger (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) With respect Jehochman - as you say this stuff should go to and stay at ANI. And so that you know I have rolled back Igor's request here as the last thing we want right now is another essay style article of SEI proportions - because Igor not getting his way feels that he is in a Wikipedia totalitarian regime!--VS talk 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Is this not censorship? I requested an article Wikipedia is censored in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias here and User:VirtualSteve reverted and deleted my request! He has been Stalking and Trolling me since the firs day I met him. On his user page it says he is a labor lawyer, but does he work for Wikimedia foundation or some special interest group. Is his job to police Wikipedia and to censor all contoversial material and POV? I really would like an ArbCom investigation of this whole matter, because I believe VirtualSteve has WP:COI with the project. He has hounded and picked fights and inflamed the situation since day one that we met. I have all the evidences to that effect to prove that VirtualSteve is Social Engineering Wikipedia Igor Berger (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I am told I am not allowed to comment in WP: so take this to ArbCom! Igor Berger (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC) He even refactored your talk page, to put his message on top of mine here Whos meatpuppet is he? You deal with sockpuppetry all the time! Put two and two together! Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) How convinient! The admin User:ZimZalaBim who AfD Search engine strategies has left me a nice note I smell WP:BEANS. Remember waterboarding bbc report of CIA social engineering of Wikipedia. The tales we weave..:) Igor Berger (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I wonder where VirtualSteve learned SEO? VirtualSteve said, "he vents his wrath at me all over wikipedia" refering to me. Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet concern

I've been posting under numerous 130.101 IPs. You can see my other IPs at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. I gave my reason for using IPs at a sock accusation I was found innocent in, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). Sorry for the confusion; I'm using public terminals and the IP changes when I use different computers. Cheers 130.101.152.155 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at WP:AE. There is an easy way to protect your privacy while avoiding the appearance or realization of sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions at my talk page

I would appreciate you returning to my talk page to provide your response to the question of brokerage that I have left there.--VS ^talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Webblogs and notability

Sorry to bother you, as I'm pretty sure you're a busy man (and yeah I'm kinda reposting this from when I mentioned it on Jimbo Wales's page, but I need a response in the more immediate future x.x_. So I'll cut to the chase too. I've been working extensively on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), an article which I'm trying to make a good one out of. The problem is it's only really seen large scale coverage starting on the 22nd of February, and much of the information from there has appeared in online blogs. The problem is coming up that regardless of which blog in question, they're being treated on the whole as 'non-notable'. However if I may to argue the notability of the ones I'm using as cornerstones for the article until a later time when better references become available:

• Kotaku not too long ago had an incident with Sony, which shows Kotaku and Sony have a professional relationship with each other, including Kotaku representatives being at Sony press releases.
• Joystiq itself has interviewed many key figures in the gaming industry, including Ryan Payton, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. If the site wasn't corporately notably to any of these companies why would they have bothered?
• InsertCredit.com additionally was present at the GDC event, and interviewed Hudson Soft as well amongst others.

All three of these are cited also often in wikipedia. I'm hoping all of this can make a case for these three to be considered valid sources to confirm the notability of the game enough as well as their own notability for other articles.

Anyway thank you for your time. You came to mind as the person to talk to after reading your statements here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to point out that certain industries, such as gaming, release most news via blogs, and only later does traditional "dead tree" media pick up on the stories and regurgitate them, often muddling the details. As such, for certain topics, online sources are more reliable. A "blog" can be a reliable source if it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, especially if it employs professional editorial staff to review stories. Something that is called a "blog" may in fact be an "e-zine" which is logically equivalent to a trade journal and just as reliable. That's the argument in a nutshell. I hope this helps you make your case. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Many weblogs are WP:RS under WP:SPS. Some blogs are even under editorial control just like a newspaper or magazine. Some are even peer-reviewed.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template removals possible promotional edits

Hi Jehochman, hope your keeping well. If you are too busy just say so. Could you have a look at thiese IPs' 117.200.224.55 and 117.200.224.164) edits to Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir and Sarojini Sahoo in particular. I {{fact}} tagged something they added to Feminism and {{unsourced section}}ed a piece they seem to have written at the Sarojini Sahoo article. They blanked these templates[15][16][17][18]. I warned them. They then reverted an edit I made removing inappropriate external links (blogs and forums) from Feminism[19]. I've reverted them myself once already so I'm doing no more reverting tonight. They seem to be promoting Sarojini Sahoo, who's work is great - it's just that the IPs are calling her "the Indian Simone de Beauvoir" and adding links to each article without any references to who said this. They are also doing all of this without edit summaries or discussion.

If you get a chance maybe you'd have a look--Cailil ^talk 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given them 48 hours, both accounts, because they are clearly the same editor. If problems resume, or if other accounts are used, please let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that Jehochman--Cailil ^talk 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about earlier

Wasn't meaning to hop IPs to avoid a block; please realize that with a new IP I didn't get the talk page messages; I didn't realize the other IP was blocked or I would have gone ahead and {{unblock}}ed it first. I'm not going to edit after this message until the unblock is decided on the other talk. 130.101.152.24 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Supportive

I am supportive of your comments here and would normally respond underneath but for today I will leave my comments here only, in appreciation of your actions.--VS ^talk 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace community ban

Being that I have been community banned for 30 days from editing in Wikipedia name space, I would like you to put a template on my user talk page stating as such, so other editors will understand why I cannot go to Wikipedia: space to comment! I also would like you or another admin who was envolved in the ban decission to file WP:RFAR because I still contest this matter. I do not want to file the ArbCom hearing request because I fear that will be used as excuse that I violated the imposed ban. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

came across a sock

Hi Jehochman, I came across this user Novjunulo yesterday and they matched the behaviour of the blocked user Junulo (not to mention having a really similar name). I opened a checkuser and it just cam back as confirmed (see here). Nonody's done anything to the two accounts in question. Do I need to report to WP:SSP or is it time for a little sysop intervention?--Cailil ^talk 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wait. A clerk will nail it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Expiry date

Hi JEH. This edit at WP:RESTRICT seems to have put the expiry date 8 months in the future, rather than the expected 6 months. The expiry date should be 2008-09-10. Since I'm not sure, I didn't change it myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Looks like just a typo. Lawrence § t/e 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

hi

This checkuser related to an article I've been editing discovered the sock puppets of two abusive users. Despite four socks of Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) being found neither his "extra" accounts or Stone himself were blocked. All of his socks were used to game reverts and consensus on the talk page. Is nothing going to be done or should I file a report at WP:SSP. Keep in mind this isn't the first offense. Thanks, Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Jonathan, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ip's and homeopathy

I think it is possible or even likely that the IP you recently topic-banned, 70.107.246.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), belongs to Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you file a WP:RFCU on the basis of your information? Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point today I will. I also mentioned it on WP:AN; sometimes the checkusers there will take a look. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana and Homeopathy

I got your message, though please know that it is not my intent to engage in an edit war. I didn't delete anything, but simply provided some good NPOV references. As long as other editors dialogue with me and present their cases in a reasonable fashion, I prefer avoid edit warring. Please AGF. I put a lot of time and thought into that contribution, and I'd love to work with you and others on figuring out how to include the body of research on homeopathy that the article at present does not reference. DanaUllman^Talk 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1/ Use the talk page. 2/ Don't remove or change any content that is referenced and was placed there by somebody else without a clear consensus of parties on all sides of the issue. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, in the edit about which you expressed concern, please note that I didn't remove anything...I only added good solid RS and N content. I also suggest that you consider warning editors when they are repeatedly doing the above. The vast majority of the time I do Talk pages quite thoroughly (as you know), though sometimes, it does make sense to be bold, as good editors need to be. I hope that you will now comment upon the content that I sought to add. DanaUllman^Talk 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having watched this page now for many months, I believe that we need to create some sort of fork (still NPOV) to house all the research information, both positive and negative, about homeopathy. Possibly theories about homeopathy might or might not work could be included. There is just too much for the main article, and it is too involved and too specialized. I will try to organize a spin-off page for this.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the table of contents you will see two or three sections that have many subsections. Just create daughter articles, without changing the content. Be sure to leave a summary of the removed content in the main article and explain on the talk page that you are not trying to pull a fast one. See gamma ray burst for a good example. The new daughter articles will qualify for WP:DYK too. Jehochman ^Talk 01

34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Views

I saw you mention at FAC that a certain page had had a specific number of 'views'. How do you find that statistic out and can anyone do it? Fainites ^barley 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see...http://stats.grok.se/ Jehochman ^Talk 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I keep getting a message from another user stating that I am vandalizing a page which clearly am not. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nissan_GT-R under "overwhelmingly published articles state the nissan gtr is a supercar" What have I done wrong and why are they not following the rules set forth by wikipeadia??? Please help. Thank you. CompScientist (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You know by now that edit warring is very harmful to Wikipedia. Due to many past incidents of this nature, and abuse of sock puppet accounts to circumvent past blocks, I have disabled editing from your account indefinitely, at least until you show that you are willing to work with other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom / Andrew Baron

This one has warmed up again. Both Andrew Baron and Rocketboom still have POV issues. Andrew Baron deleted his page and it was restored by others. Based on prior discussion on the talk page, I attempted to merge the two articles and that seems to have been reverted by different folks. I then attempted to remove the duplicated material from the Andrew Baron article and that was reverted as well. Seems like the next step is to put Andrew Baron on AfD where it would likely reach merge consensus, but frankly I'm hesitant to get involved. Can you take a peek and make some suggestions on how to proceed? For the record, I'm not affiliated with any of the parties and I walked away from this for several months. Cleanr (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you check this autoblock

[20] Normally, I would handle autoblocks myself, since it is usually innocent collateral damage, but since this one deals with sockpuppetry problems, I thought I would bump it to you since you are more familiar with the sockpuppet in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Prior_account

I responded to your post at User_talk:Wakedream#Prior_account there. Thanks for listening! Wakedream (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Waterboarding

As you began a discussion on my userpage, I thought I'd return the favor. Actually, I could use some advice. As you've pointed out, I've been involved in the discussion over whether Waterboarding should be identified by Wikipedia as torture, or, as I believe, identified as an interrogation method or something similar. The article could then name people, governments, authorites, etc. who call it torture, and name those who say (or, as is the case with George W. Bush, imply) that it is not. I keep running into editors, as I think have you, who say Bush isn't a valid source because he's not an expert, or that the people who say it's not torture are just a fringe and should be ignored, or that 6 to 10 people vs. 230 people aren't worth mentioning. None of this seems to me to be NPOV. I believe editors are letting their personal feelings get in the way of their editing. My question is, what can I do without letting myself get caught in a repetitive debate? (Note that my opinion on whether or not waterboarding is torture has nothing to do with my wanting the article to be NPOV. I believe very strongly in Thomas Jefferson's "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," and in "let the facts speak for themselves," which you and I have both quoted). Thanks for your patience with a frustrated editor who's still learning! Wakedream (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)