User talk:Jehochman

; Archives
	June 2006 – Mar 2007; Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007; August 7, 2007 - the mysterious future; ; This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived. ;

Leave a new message. I give extra credit for politeness.

Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

Adminship?

Sarah would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sarah to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jehochman. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Thank you very much. Please have a look at my answers and post it for consideration when ready. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. • Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57

Re [1]: fair enough, but I'd still like clarification of the general principle. Your patience with all this has been incredible... Raymond Arritt 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If everyone I ever helped block or ban shows up, that could be an issue. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Steve McVey on the Toto page

I'm "Writer1400" from the Toto page, look at all the changes I had to make because Steve McVey, the guy who works for Toto's website, came in and changed everything and made it look like a fansite. Can you please do something about this? He's ignored both of your warnings, he just doesn't care. Writer1400

The community will handle it. He's been warned and we are hoping he will stop. Once he stops or gets blocked, I will help you restore the page. All past revisions are saved so you efforts will be preserved. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored the page pretty much. I'm just dreading that he is going to come back. Thank you for all your help. What do you mean by the community? Do you mean the admins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer1400 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reverting back the Toto page

I've gone back and changed all the bias and fan writing that Steve McVey made. Some of what he wrote was an improvement so I kept it. I just took out the bias stuff, everything is good now. Thank you for all your help. Writer1400

Semi Automatic Peer Review

Semi Automatic Peer Review has been completed for this article Gamma ray burst to help achieve GA. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review?

Would you mind taking a peek at this noticeboard posting I did? I'm asking as you had been a pretty neutral arbiter on that page in the previous warring between the campaign managers for Szwaja and Godden. • Lawrence Cohen 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the neutral 3rd party look. I asked one follow up, if you get a chance (not sure if you watchlist that board). Thanks! Aside from this the article after all that earlier kerkuffle has been incredibly quiet. • Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to "Sex Scandal"

I am interested to know why, this morning, you edited the page "Sex Scandals." Was this prompted by complaint or request?

Thanks for the information.

See here. It was a good edit. • Lawrence Cohen 16:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

I am working on the good article candidate Gamma ray burst. There are a few paragraphs and sentences that need citations, as explained here. I am looking for somebody who could dig up the necessary references. I can help with formatting the references if you are unfamiliar with the cite templates. Much of the work is done, just a few more are needed. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian's RfA

Hi, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. You were the final supporter. I hope that I am doing a good job so far. Bearian 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grab that mop and get to work, fella. Raymond Arritt 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! • Lawrence Cohen 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Daniel 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avast! Congratulations, JH! Arrr! :) Sarah 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations welcome to the sewers jump in there plenty of backlogs that would appreciate additional attention. Gnan garra 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :-) Melsaran (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hello, you probably don't remember me, but I was involved with the Kyiv/Kiev debate. I was very impressed with your conduct, and I see I am too late to support your administrator request. Even though in the end we disagree, you were quite reasonable. I do, however, have a question. If you were an administrator then, would you have blocked Horlo at the time you made this edit[2]? Do you intend to block him now? Thanks, Ostap 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No and No. The debate is harmless enough. I believe, but don't know for sure, that Bishonen created that page so everybody could ramble on endlessly without disrupting any other processes. I don't think that issue will come to a conclusion any time soon. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I, and many others, have asked Horlo to edit other pages also, and he has started to do so. I just wanted to make sure he doesn't get blocked now that he is adding content to articles. Thanks and congratulations, Ostap 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

You are welcome for the support. :) Here is a T-shirt to wear! :) Acalamari 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! - Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I was first admin to receive a T-shirt! :) Glad you like it. Also, while I'm here, I suggest that, when you get a chance, take a look at the school for new admins, you'll find it very useful. Good luck. Acalamari 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Have fun with the new tools (I don't have a gift at the moment though, sorry). Cheers! Ανέκδοτο 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! :D --Folic Acid 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Best of luck with the tools! I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Cheers, EconomicsGuy 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and I'm lovin' the shirt! Phgao 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! Best wishes for your new adminship -- and congratulations. Majoreditor 03:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Eagle 56 (PE-56), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! --Espresso Addict 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.106.230.196

Hey Jehochman, congrats on getting the mop, sorry I wasn't around to support your RFA (was on a wikibreak).
Could you have a look at IP User 69.106.230.196's contribs to my talk page and to Talk:feminism. They claim to have held an account previously and already know WP's rules and code of conduct but they're adding screed to my talk page about abortion. 69.106.230.196 has a problem with the phraseology of "feminists campaign for the right to abortion" - this terminology (right to abortion) is not my pov - it is taken verbatim from a number of books about feminism's campaign for women's rights. 69.106.230.196 takes issue with the definition of the word "right" in relation to abortion but (as yet) has no sources for their stance.--Cailil ^talk 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean war dispute

Can you explain where I was incivil in this comment you cited on my page? Because I used the phrase "...don't give a shit..."? That's not "Profanity directed at another contributor"; I don't see how it's incivil. Perhaps you could explain more. Regardless, there is an ongoing RfC about this issue, so the dispute resolution process is underway. Parsecboy 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not giving a shit, no matter how it's directed, conveys a bad attitude and risks offending the other editor for no reason. I am glad you have sought dispute resolution and hope that this helps reduce stress levels. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Image with Clear Face in Korea War

Thanks Jehochman. I will take your suggestion and take it to the next level using the dispute resolution process instead of an edit war. Acturally I was the one first started to talk to almost every users involved recently. The only one I did not leave a message is postdoc who supported me. I did not delete the image without discussion, instead I did it after 2-3 days of long discusssion. I may start a poll first, I am still in the process of learning. Thanks for your remind. Dongwenliang 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I hope you don't mind me nom'ing [3] for deletion, as it redirects to a deleted page and nothing links to it. (I'm cleaning up broken redirects) Thanks! Phgao 14:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

I received you message: apparently, someone is claiming I have a COI?

Yet, even if that was the case, I notice that the COI article you linked to says: "Conflict of interest is *not* a reason to delete an article" (emphasis mine).

The current for of the article for Chapman University Law School lacks the degree of coverage which other local law schools, like Southwestern, Loyola, University of San Diego, Pepperdine, or even some law schools that are currently on *probation* with the accrediting agency, such as Whittier and Western State. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Law_School , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_Law_School , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_San_Diego_School_of_Law , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperdine_University_School_of_Law , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier_Law_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_State_University_College_of_Law )

I was just trying to bring it more on line with its peers.

In spite of which, my article has been *repeatedly* deleted!

Not having time to do original research, I asked permission to use text from their website, which I received. I don't know if I used the correct format (*still* trying to figure out you're markup language!) but I have put in links to the specific pages I drew from. If there is direct permission, and direct reference to sources, how can that be plagiarism?

As for the charge of POV (which, I assume is computer-speak for "bias"?) on more than one occasion, in the discussion area, I've stated that:"If there is any language that is subjective or shows a specific bias, point it out (as I've said before!), and I'll edit it to read more objectively."

However, what POV is evidenced by a list of their faculty members -- a description of their clinics and advanced degree programs? They actually do have those faculty members, clinics and programs -- what is unobjective or biased about that?

Long and short, I'm trying to comply with your rules, and provide more substantive information about this institution, on a par with comparable law schools in the area. However, instead of being "accepted by the community", *one* person seems to object.

Instead of just *deleting* substantive information, wouldn't it be better for that one person to give constructive advice as to *which* passages they think betray some specific bias? Undoing my edit denies readers information about this law school on a comparable level with the information provided about its peers.

As I observed in the discussion area: "Undoing an article that has a lot of useful information for one that has very little -- *that* seems more like vandalism to me!"