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.

File:Typical-serp.png

Hi, since you're an administrator I thought it might be quicker to point this out to you directly. The above file is a fairly poor candidate for the purpose that it's being used for. It depicts a US-centric, politically partisan and recentist search query. It's not clear to me if you realise this, since you've been involved in the image discussion before the event, but it also shows the Wikipedia entry at the time when Google had picked up a vandalised version of the Obama article. Since the image isn't being used for educational commentary about this incident, it's on shaky ground with respect to neutrality and libel, and doesn't represent a typical search result anyway. Would you consider self deleting and using a different search? Maybe "mercury" would make a good neutral and diverse search. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter what image I choose, somebody is bound to object. If you have a problem with article content, take it to the article talk page. My talk page is not the correct venue for discussions about article content. I am completely fed up of users complaining to me as if this image is my responsibility to fix. Anybody can step in and upload a better version. Just start a discussion if you have any doubts. Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not article content, it's a shaky application of fair use provisions. But if that's as civil a response as I'm going to get, I'll try to make time to produce an improved replacement at some point and take it the usual way through FFD. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever written a good or featured article? Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia for recognition, nor do I believe particularly in the short-term value of localised incidences of high quality, and if I did I'm not sure how that would be relevant to this image. If it's supposed to be the set-up of an ad hominem attack, save your breath. The image, given an easily produced alternative, will not survive FFD. I made a friendly suggestion to skip the need for lengthy discussion in the spirit of cheerfully making improvements to the encyclopedia, but I appreciate that there's no Wikipedia policy requiring even administrators to respond positively to such suggestions. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating discussions that were had before. I am sure you are not aware of that, but I would like to share with you the circumstances as to why I am so frustrated. It takes a lot of effort to write a good or featured article. There are vastly too many editors who ramble around, not knowing or caring how much effort has gone into an article, and they seek to enforce rules for the sale of enforcing them, not because they make Wikipedia better. Instead of playing cop, why don't you suggest ways to improve the article? I have said many times that anybody can replace the image with one that is more informative. Finding a more informative SERP, making a screen shot, and uploading it takes a bit of work. It's not as fun as drive-by tagging huge numbers of images for deletions, as some (maybe not you) seem to like to do. What is the "easily produced alternative". Show me and I will help you upload it. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GROND

Hey there. I'm the one getting the GROND stuff sorted out. The See Also thing is slightly complicated to explain. I've been working it out with the ME project: see project talk. As you can see, it's slightly more complicated than a simple disambiguation.

I'm working on getting a source on the name of the instrument actually being a reference to Tolkien. I put it in the See Also as a temporary thing, to be fixed when the article is no longer a stub. But for now, as I said on the ME project talk, Greiner's page at MPE does seem to implicitly suggest that it is indeed a reference.

My plan was to try a little bit more for a source. If I fail, I was going to put it in a "other uses"; otherwise, I was going to put it into the body of the article. demonburrito (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you could add a disambiguation link. For the fictional battering ram of Tolkien's Middle Earth, see... Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You could contact the researcher and ask them to post an explanation, and then reference it. Sometimes you can provoke a fact to appear. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! That was my plan, but I haven't figured out how to go about it. I couldn't easily find an example of an article citing a response from the subject. It sounds like you may have experience doing this sort of thing. Any pointers? demonburrito (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the current version. I put a note in the hatnote, and a reference in the note. It was the hairiest mediawiki markup I've done (nested ref bug); but I think this is viable, for now.

Feel free to move our conversation to the article's talkpage, if you wish. Thanks again. demonburrito (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

O'RLY?

Muhahaha? — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a word

A chara, could you possibly have a word here to calm things down. I’ve told Dunc, I’ll not be rising to these taunts and accusations. Besides they will just keep going if we encourage them. I'll do what I normally do, and that’s edit articles. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. I did not report it or the double standards since I was once blocked for less before, because hey what’s the point. Even the accusation of tag teaming did not faze me, despite being warned about this and given final warnings because I don't see the point! This here was just to wind up the editor and it worked. Why feed into it, ignore it and they go away. The reason I ask is you handeled these [1] [2] with little fuss or drama so you know some of the background. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I also add that you go back to the very first couple of posts I made, and subsequent passive aggressiveness and bullying I met with (With Big Dunc, not Domer) I lashed out at Big Dunc in my last post, but considering the way he's been behaving it should be no surprise. If you take the piss expect to get a box is what I say. Now, i understand i will get blocked for a period of time, i'm ready for that, but please consider the root of this whole mess, and look with very critical eyes at Domer's 'rendition' of the events. NewIreland2009 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally block people for potty talk. Why don't you just stop the provocations? Claiming the other side engaged in provocation is not an excuse for your behavior. Your talk of a short block underestimates the seriousness of this situation. When somebody is a perpetual source of disruption, it is my style to block them indefinitely. Don't test me; I am good to my word. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that a chara, that should be the end of the matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken that on board. Bear in mind my posts were in opposition to the censorship attempted - if my posts are allowed to remain then that most certainly is the end of the matter. NewIreland2009 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NewIreland2009 I think Jehochman is being very reasonable here so don't push it. Accusations of censorship will not do you any favours, and your personal attack on editors should be removed, likewise the one here. They do not attempt to improve the articles only provide a platform from which to mount attacks. Please read WP:TPG, remove the section and move on from this. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My post was not a personal attack, though I do admit I have made personal attacks since then, after heavy provocation and passive aggression and general mean behaviour. I was merely saying that 60 + references for that article is absurd (Do you reject that?) and that certain users are guarding articles on wikipedia (Which is very clear to all users on wikipedia, thats why there are watchlists - its not necessarily a bad thing, just depends on the motives of the individuals involved.) So no personal attack there, unless you perceived there to be one. Frankly, if attempts hadn't been made to cover up a perfectly legitimate post then nothing would have come from all of this. Just let the matter drop and the leave the post where it is - it clearly doesn't violate wikipedia guidelines and no-one has provided a valid reason for it being removed other than 'I don't like it' or 'per Rule Number 109000893333213'. I'm willing to let it drop but am not willing to remove it. Only yourself and Big Dunc seem to think it should be removed, and frankly, neither of you have the authority to make that decision.

Now please, CAN THIS BE THE LAST POST ON THE MATTER!? NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Thanks, it's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indents and Apologies

Apologies - of course I was not addressing your good self! Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Donations and RFAR

Maybe $50 for whoever can find the RFAR with the largest number of separate statements and the largest by pure size? The adminbot one was fairly large, but I'm sure some others have been larger. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Closures at WP:AE

Hi Jehochman, with all due respect I disagree with your recent closures at WP:AE and I have request a second pair of eyes to look at them. My comments are here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am uninvolved. You are gaming the system. Please stop. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When I asked for an uninvolved admin, I meant another uninvolved admin. Please step back and allow another admin to review the situation. Handing out blocks for questioning your judgement is inappropriate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)