User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions
→WP:BOMB: new section |
→Just FYI: new section |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
Hi Jonathan, I wanted to add my name to your many admirers here for how you've brought some measure of sanity and organization to the Santorum/santorum mess. Jayen, I, and others have been collaborating on an essay on real or perceived Wikibombing at [[WP:BOMB]] (though Jayen's been doing all the heavy lifting so far). As the primary author of [[Wikipedia:Search engine optimization]], would you be able to stop by and give a few thoughts? Thanks for all you do. -- [[User:Khazar|Khazar]] ([[User talk:Khazar|talk]]) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Jonathan, I wanted to add my name to your many admirers here for how you've brought some measure of sanity and organization to the Santorum/santorum mess. Jayen, I, and others have been collaborating on an essay on real or perceived Wikibombing at [[WP:BOMB]] (though Jayen's been doing all the heavy lifting so far). As the primary author of [[Wikipedia:Search engine optimization]], would you be able to stop by and give a few thoughts? Thanks for all you do. -- [[User:Khazar|Khazar]] ([[User talk:Khazar|talk]]) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Just FYI == |
|||
You can probably effect real change to the state terrorism article [[User:Jrtayloriv|at this point]], without encountering the [http://www.canberrafiremuseum.com.au/images/inventory/asbestos_suit_trial.jpg previous conditions]. Best luck. [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport]] ([[User talk:V7-sport|talk]]) 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:47, 22 June 2011
Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
There's been a lot of communication over the ages. To find a previous conversation, please search the archives. |
Blocks in December 2010 of User:Mbz1
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block log of Mbz1 regarding the December 2010 block of User:Mbz1. Thank you. AGK [•] 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are flashes of gamma rays associated with extremely energetic explosions in distant galaxies. GRBs are the most luminous electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. A typical burst lasts 20–40 seconds, but can last from ten milliseconds to several minutes. The initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths. Most observed GRBs are believed to be a narrow beam of intense radiation released during a supernova event, as a rapidly rotating, high-mass star collapses to form a neutron star or black hole. The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic and extremely rare. GRBs were first detected in 1967 by the Vela satellites, but it was not until 1997 that they were better understood, with the use of optical spectroscopy 1997 to detect the first X-ray and optical afterglows and to directly measure their redshifts. (more...)
Your edit of a fully protected page without discussion or consensus
Your recent edit of a fully protected page without consensus or discussion on the talk page is an obvious violation of the Wikipedia protection Policy. Please revert immediately. --Noren (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you notice the 10+ day RFC that I was closing? No, probably you didn't, because there is a note there requesting that editors leave their complaints on the talk page. Thanks, and goodbye. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For doing the the right thing at the right time. JN466 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Seeking some advice/guidance
Hi Jehochman, I need to ask for your advice/guidance if possible, which is connected to [1] and [2]. As I am currently under an interaction ban with WP:EEML editors, any edits which so much as reintroduce into the article anything that was removed, could be construed as an interaction, and hence be sanctionable. As I have been just come back from a 4 day block for my edits to Russophobia, I of course would like to avoid any situations which can be used for battleground furtherment in this area. The article as it stands is a POV-ridden mess, and is full of original research, synthesis, and lack of context.
For example, the article as it stands now (and as it did in July 2010), states in the lead:
According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies".[4]
As you can see from this edit from August 2010, I moved the statement to a relevant section, and expanded it to read:
Within this context, according to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment was intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies", however she also notes that even Russian democrats took Estonia's removal of the statue immediately before one of the most respected and cherished dates in the Russian calendar, to be an affront to the Russian national honour,.
The move of this information back to the lead, along with removal of context, presents a serious POV problem with the article, but due to interaction bans, if I so much as touch it, it will essentially regarded as a revert, and hence I can be sanctioned. It also should be noted that the current version does not comply with WP:LEAD in that it introduces material which is not discussed later in the article. But mostly the lack of context is a big problem.
If you review my edits to the article from August 2010, you will notice that they are good faith, constructive edits, and go some way to help to fix the article in its then, and now current, state.
As a neutral and uninvolved administrator, could you please provide your opinion on how to approach issues such as this. Cheers, --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I have also requested advice/guidance from FPaS here as I think it would be beneficial to seek advice from a couple of different quarters to see what different admins might suggest. And as both of you are neutral and uninvolved, I would value any input. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You're invited to the New York Wiknic!
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!
To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw your note
Jehocman, I saw your note on my page, and yes, I absolutely agree that there are some editors causing problems on that page. Why not simply delete the page per the policy on attack pages ? (and yes, I'll do as you ask and not re-nominate it) :) KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- MY first thought was "just delete this", but looking over the CSD reason codes I didn't feel comfortable with any of them. As it now stands, the article has been retitled and refocused, which mitigates some but not all of the problems. If you stay out of the line of fire, that will make it easier for me to remove any tendentious editors who try to use the article as an attack page. Thank you for your understanding and calm responses to all of this. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jehocman, the article itself is an attack page. The term was coined to disparge Rick Santorum, so any use of the term, even if it's references is automatically an attack o Rick Santorum. This, therefore, is an attack page.
I understand you want the page to calm down, and I'll do my part (no posting on the page, no nom'ing for deleteion or anything else) as I said, but under that circumstance, policy is clear, the page needs to be deleted. Does that sound like a fair reading of policy ? KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOMB
Hi Jonathan, I wanted to add my name to your many admirers here for how you've brought some measure of sanity and organization to the Santorum/santorum mess. Jayen, I, and others have been collaborating on an essay on real or perceived Wikibombing at WP:BOMB (though Jayen's been doing all the heavy lifting so far). As the primary author of Wikipedia:Search engine optimization, would you be able to stop by and give a few thoughts? Thanks for all you do. -- Khazar (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI
You can probably effect real change to the state terrorism article at this point, without encountering the previous conditions. Best luck. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)