User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3

Archive 3 created August 7, 2007

Editing Suggestions

Hi and thanks again for your suggestions regarding articles to work on outside the Juice Plus realm. I have already made edits to several articles that I found listed here [1]. It's a nice break and it has been refreshingly free of controversy. I also followed up on your suggestion to review some of the good article candidates. It's going to take me a little bit of time to get up to speed on what constitutes a good article, but while I am learning the ropes, I will continue to pick away at the articles listed as needing attention. Thanks once again for your constructive comments. Rhode Island Red 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your copy-edit of Sheerness during its FAC. Epbr123 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A mere two minutes

Providently enough, I have a couple of minutes. Feel free to email me directly. Gwernol 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I lose any footwear?

Please don't take the question as a smart ass rhetorical jab. It's intended to be a friendly did you mean me? Anynobody 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no risk of that because I don't understand what you mean. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary: 04:20, 25 June 2007 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) (186,508 bytes) (no throwing shoes)...from Durova's^Charge! talk page diff. Anynobody 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is your name John, too? I was addressing Lsi John. Notice that my comment is at the same indent level as yours. I was responding to the comment above, not you. Jehochman ^Talk 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Lsi john involving self in a dispute...making it worse

Any suggestions you have or input you can make would be good. Lsi john seems to be involving himself in a dispute (Mediation is involved, there have been several ANI's etc) and isn't beening helpful. I see he has a history of involving himself in such disputes in an unhelpful way...I wonder if you could act? See this, for example, [[2]]. or this [[3]]

SamDavidson 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, you might notice that one of those is on an admin's page, and the same admin is involved in the other conversation. And jehochman is not an admin. Would you be kind enough to explain how I'm making anything worse? And, also, why the admin has not suggested that I'm making anything worse? Peace.Lsi john 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See, Lsijohn is making it even worse!!! Also see diff [[4]] to see an example of how he is inflaming this situation and making his own false accusations, which he knows are not true. SamDavidson 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, taking a single diff like that, completely out of context, probably wont be very helpful for you. Most people who work the noticeboards are sharper than that and they'll read the entire context of the conversation and not 'assume' something based on a single snippet. The fact is, I made no accusations there. The fact that you seem to see one, is a bit peculiar. The fact that you think I know something to be true or untrue is also odd. Exactly what do you think I'm accusing, and what is it that I know? Peace.Lsi john 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, now that I think about it, I welcome your input here too. I've been following this particular situation for quite some time now. It's fairly complex and would take hours to read all the background, but I'm open to your feedback on my comments. I'll trust your AGF read. let me know. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, I am not the designated minder for any particular editor. If you have a problem, please work through normal channels. John, I may look into this since both sides seem to welcome my involvement. Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have no preference either way. But I'm always open to feedback and insight. My remarks have been about as neutral as they can be. I've chastened people on both sides of the dispute, and I've made suggestions to people on both sides of the dispute. It's been a long, drawn out, and not pretty situation. Though here I'm less involved than with our current co-involvement. I'll tell you more about Sam once you have an opportunity to go through both posts. Peace.Lsi john 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read the user RfC on DPeterson too. Peace.Lsi john 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

John, why don't you sign up as an admin trainee with an administrator who specializes in mediation? I am a big fan of training. You can get free coaching here, and develop (or improve) your expertise. Wikipedia skills transfer over into real life. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do. :) Peace.Lsi john 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, Since Sam doesn't feel that I'm being fair or helpful, perhaps you'd like to work with them and help resolve this situation. Peace.Lsi john 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My inclination is to refer it to WP:COIN. Informal mediation doesn't seem possible because one or more sides don't want to volley. The issue is whether or not that user is Becker or looks so much like Becker that it casts the article's neutrality in doubt. The patrollers at COIN know how to properly ask for a checkuser, so I think they will get to the bottom of it in short order. Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there seem to have been at least two, maybe three, CheckUser inquiries into the accusatios of DPeterson, Dr. Becker-Weidman, and others being sockpuppets and each time there was a finding, so to speak, of this being unfounded. See:

[[5]]

[[6]]

the only conflict of interest I see is that both Mercer and Sarner are leasder of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy and have published a book on Attachment Therapy that pushes the POV of their group. They have a financial interest in this issue and the conflict...careers, etc. SamDavidson 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Those connections probably aren't strong enough to be considered COI. Experts are allowed to edit in their field, and experts usually have strong opinions. There could be an issue of POV pushing, but that's something different from COI. Jehochman ^Hablar 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are aware, but if not, these editors ended up in arbitration here (unrelated to me). Peace.Lsi john 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

On Durova's talk page you summed up the point I was trying to make. I'm not offended or anything but just wanted to get some feedback:

I think all further discussions belong at the case pages. If you have something good to say, make it available to all of us where we will see it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bothering Durova about the arbcom is pointless since the case is already open. Was I being unclear, or did you just want to make sure the message got across? Anynobody 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify; I'm not looking to fight or anything like that, you appear to be a neutral editor, so I'm asking for your feedback.

I'd also still like to know if this was meant to include me. If it was, again I'm not looking to fight or argue but for more information. Anynobody 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take all comments and questions about this case to the arbitration forum. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See above for the answer to your specific question. Jehochman ^Talk 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What the..?

This very surprising edit of yours just jumped up on my watchlist. "Disruption"? What are you talking about? How is the acknowledged alternative account User:JustaHulk disruptive, or trolling, or any kind of appropriate arbitration evidence? There are only a few contributions, did you click on any of them? Or look at its explanatory userpage? Did you notice the unblock reason the next day?[7] You think that extremely pacifistic, rather sad sock is disruptive, take a look at mine (and I assure you the ArbCom know mine, and fear her). Seriously... As Justanother mentioned in his unblock request,[8] the JustaHulk account literally never edited any other page than its own and Bishzilla's. In fact, I suspect it was my own creation of that playful alternative identity, which nobody has thought to block yet, even though it has been disrupting all over the wiki for months (down, Bishzilla!) that inspired his JustaHulk. That Smee then chose to go to User talk:JustaHulk and try (unsuccessfully) to stir him up hardly seems a good reason for Jersey Devil to block JustaHulk. Hmmm... I suspect Bishzilla is on her way over to have a little chat with Jersey Devil... Oh, no... RUN, JD ! Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

You seem to have some influence over Justanother. He's made some rather nasty comments to me and about me within the arbitration. Would you please ask him to refactor? I'll refactor my evidence based on your explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

JustaHulk

Is it really appropriate to characterize this activity as trolling? Looks like meaningless chatter to me: WP:NOT stuff, but still an acknowledged account with very few edits. I identified the Justanother talk page banter only because it overlapped with the community ban discussion. The timing establishes circumstantial evidence that they supported each other's positions out of cameraderie rather than on the merits of the case and that they endeavored at concealment. Trolling is a strong word. Would you consider refactoring? Durova^Charge! 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted contributions. I don't know exactly why that account was blocked for disruption, but presumably there was a reason. In any case, Bishonen has vouched for the account, so I struck the evidence. See my comment above. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In future, if you suspect deleted edits are an issue with something you're investigating you can pass the research to me. I won't be able to disclose the specifics to you if I find something, but ArbCom can see and weigh anything I find. If I'd known you were looking at this I could have helped out. Remember WP:AGF. Thanks for the strikethrough. Durova^Charge! 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help comment on the proposed links

Hello

I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As requested # 1

Hi. In response to your request on my talk page to show you some things of interest, here is my first.

User:Fahrenheit451 has maintained a blatant example of bad faith as a major feature of his user page since September 2006. I refer to User:Fahrenheit451#A Short Guide to Office of Special Affairs Tactics on Wikipedia. Here is the first version.

The section violates WP:UP#NOT; it is polemic and violates the quoted passage by Jimbo Wales on bad ideas for user pages. It speaks to the inherent bias here that it has been allowed to remain because, presumably, "all" it attacks are Scientologists.

It would help if I explain the context. It relates to alt.religion.scientology and the conspiracy theories prevalent there where critics of Scientology discuss who or who is not an "OSA operative". OSA (Office of Special Affairs) is the part of the structure of Scientology that deals with legal issues and attacks. ARS regulars suppose that anyone pro-Scientology is OSA. They wonder if any critic that seems overly stupid is an OSA operative just doing that to make critics look bad. They probably wonder if any of their "inner circle" (ARSCC) is an OSA infiltrator. In short they do what conspiracy theorists always do, be paranoid. A good example is if you search for me, "Justanother", in the newsgroup and you will see all the same conspiracy theories about me; that I am a paid OSA operative. That is part and parcel of Usenet; it is extreme bad faith to bring that trash here.

Not only is the section a bad idea on its own "merit", it has led to abuse. A number of editors have used it as justification to attack me. See User talk:Fahrenheit451#Your user page "tips" and User talk:Fahrenheit451#Would you consider for just a couple. F451 also tends to add anything that I do that threatens him to the "Guide". I accuse him of "Bait and Bitch" (a term I invented after he was no longer able to get any admin to play "Bait and Block" with him) and, "miraculously", that accusation is now added as something that OSA operatives do.

On a more extended sluething level, F451's talk page posts in the Scientology-series articles and in various user spaces exhibit an extraodinary level of bad faith overall. He has apparently made it his mission to hound pro-Scientology editors in a manner that mimics his own "Guide". One example of his harassment is accusing Lsi john, of all people, of being an OSA operative, here. --Justanother 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology article

90 minutes and you got reverted. That is a relatively long time. I just balanced that same section a bit. I'll give it 5-10 minutes until destruction. Observe. Misou 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit wasn't pro-Scientology either, was it? I've left a message for Durova asking for advice. Please do yourself a favor and don't engage in edit warring. Take it to the talk page, then mediation and RFC if talk doesn't work. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was pro-Scientology because it replaced a generality with specifics. "All Scientologists are bad and evil" is better accepted than "one newspaper said 16 years ago". Obviously a provocation and POV-pushing, but this is what I try to get across since months. BTW, it took 22 minutes to get my contribution destroyed (completely) this time. Normally I'd revert for vandalism. You got a better idea? Misou 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Put parts of it back in. Misou 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Misou, while I sympathize, 'vandalism' has a specific meaning to the nice folks at wikipedia. In the same way that spraypaint graffiti is art (unless you own the building being 'decorated'). I say that wikipedia won't self-destruct and this is a perfect opportunity to let Jehochman see what you've been up against. I suspect he hasn't had quite the opportunity to go up against veteran POV yet. This will be good experience for him. (truly no offense intended J) Peace.Lsi john 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This will give him a chance to see how they like to use vague cult claims and resist narrowly focused citations that actually match the source. Peace.Lsi john 03:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask the other editors if the would like to work out a compromise. Be polite. You may feel like you know the answer already, but ask anyways. If that fails, go to WP:RFC. My edit was just a test to see what the atmosphere is like. I am not interested in this topic. I've written a featured article so I know how to present facts in an NPOV way. My edit being reverted is a bad sign. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, may I suggest you demonstrate? I think you'll fail, but thats not through any fault of your own. But I'd really like you to see first-hand and experience the frustration personally, so you have 'walked a mile in Misou's (and COFS and Justanother's) shoes, so to speak. Asking Misou to do it, is doomed to fail anyway, because they already have a 'history' with Misou. Jump in with both feet. I'd actually like to see you succeed. And either way, it will have a positive outcome. Thanks. (its the lead by example thingy.) Peace.Lsi john 03:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll pass on editing Scientology. I like editing geographies and biographies. Religion and philosphy aren't my things. This is a conflict that can suck up more time that I have available. My one edit was a test to confirm my suspicions. The climate over there is bad. Maybe arbcom will have a solution. If you want to solve this problem, make a list of edits where somebody reverted, even though the edit was an improvement to the article. Add my edit to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The climate over there is as bad as it is being made. I am the only Scientologist around today (it seems) so Mr. and Mrs. COI seem to be on the other side of the fence. BTW, 24 minutes this time. Observe. Misou 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you got a rise over there, Jehochman. Good job! There was an element of luck for you. Remember that you are dealing with one of the most savvy group of Wikipedians when you are dealing with critics of Scientology. Most of them are, no doubt, following the arb and would recognize your name and not bother you. RookZero is very typical of the sort of "soldier" we see over there a lot. Probably not aware of the arb. Check his block history. But he can edit all he likes with no fear of being reverted by anyone other than a Scientologist and you know how much hell Scientologists catch. Check my early edit history. I was slammed on reverts by four or five established anti-Scientology editors and/or admins at any given time. To be honest, the situation over there is a lot better now than it was when I showed up though there are still a few die-hard "old-school" WP:BITE reverters over there. Most of the more savvy editors have wised up and take it a lot slower. And that is a good thing. It is mainly just a matter of persistence and addressing those tendentious editors on a one-by-one basis rather than thinking that arb is a magic bullet. But I appreciate your efforts. --Justanother 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm a little bit disappointed that you'd give up after a single 'test edit'. For all the criticism you've given Justanother (and other editors you have classified as pro-Scientologists), and for as many times as you've suggested that the pro-Scientologists 'back off' while 'we' clean up the article, the fact that you give up after one 'test edit' only further demonstrates the problem. If you, as a neutral editor, can be driven off after 'one test edit', how can we criticize any Scientologists for anything they do there to obtain a balance? And I don't mean to be harsh, its just a frustration I have. Especially given your email offer to help clean up the articles. Peace.Lsi john 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many articles here where I can edit without grief. I might get involved in editing once we pull apart the scrum and remove all the edit warriors. Until then, I will only make an occasional test edit to see how things are going. Article parole, as already proposed, might be the ideal solution. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, my friend. I really do. And I'm glad you did the test edit. And I'm glad that one of the anti-Scientologists was able to help you see the facts the way they really are. And, yes, perhaps article probation will do some good, (whatever article probation is). And at least now you have a small glimmer of understanding about why I objected so strongly at the CSN to the 'rush to judgment' of COFS. I'm glad you took the time to look, it shows you are willing to be open minded. I'm just sorry that you aren't interested in truly investing time to help clean up wikipedia in this area. It's too easy to spend time on the 'boards', handling 'complaints', and passing around hoses. It's much tougher to be 'in the trenches' having mud slung at you. (and then ending up at a thread where the people in charge start slinging mud at you too). Peace.Lsi john 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[someone answered on the talkpage just minutes after you made your "test edit" ! Unbelieveable your edit(without discussion or consensus made on a highly controversial issue) got revererted. And Missou tells you that but not that it is discussed. Sad, I generally agree with your POV issue and don't like the last line but I don't know how to make it more concise right now. As I made my first edit in the Scientology article I was called a vandal and as I went to talkpage to ask what was wrong, someone made racist slurs and attacked me in various ways. But Misou seems to like you now and there is nothing to be afraid of to go to talkpage. (: By the way, people react that harsh even on smaller changes and reverts now because otherwise some people would reach with numerous smaller edits again such an intro.(only cited by 10 advertisement websites) And it took long discussions and editwars to come back to a more concise intro. BTW, Justanaother and LSI John were not envolved in edit warring or personal attacks as far I know. Didn't mean them. I did edit warring as well but on a smaller scale and I will continue especially when edits are made without consensus and with POV. -- Stan _talk 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rick Boyce article removal

Hi Jehochman,

I'm not a heavy user of Wikipedia and don't understand all the subtleties of it.

That being said, I don't understand the rationale for removing the Rick Boyce article.

He is a historical figure of significant importance in the Internet advertising world.

He is the first person to successfully sell banner ads on a large scale for the first successful commercially-based web publication. Hotwired (1994.)

The banner ad provided the financial foundation for the growth of the web from 1994 to 2000. It is still a viable web advertising vehicle in spite of being eclipsed by PPC advertising.

Boyce's role in web history is recounted in a book published by J. Wiley, a respected publisher.

Anyone attempting to research the early years of the commercial development of the web using wikipedia will be missing a big piece of the story with this article removed.

BTW, Boyce is no longer in the Internet industry, so there is absolutely no incentive for this article other than to contribute to the knowledge base.

Thanks for your help with this.

Best,

Nolatime

It seems that an administrator has deleted the article. Articles need to meet the criteria for notability. In a nutshell, there have to be multiple, independent sources of information about a person in order to create a Wikipedia biography article. Apparently that wasn't the case here. Feel free to add information about this person to relevant articles, such as Web banner, but make sure to cite a reliable source if you want your edits to last a long time. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman,

Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated.

I tracked down the name of the adminstrator responsible and his reasoning:

"14:11, 20 July 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Rick Boyce" (Expired prod, concern was: Almost no Google hits for the subject. Probably not notable enough.)"

"*Almost* no Google hits on the subject...(some, but not enough according to what standard?)

• Probably* not notable enough...(*probably* not notable? based on what research and what standards?)

It is a written policy that the number of Google searches a topic generates this month is grounds for removal from Wikipedia?

References to Boyce and his prominent Internet career appear in Google search results for his name. Also, there are *pages* are devoted to his contributions in one of the established references on the history of web commercialization published by John Wiley & Sons. Wiley is a 100 year old book publisher that has been one of the primary publishers of books about the Internet and web commerce.

My article sourced this book, including the exact pages where Boyce's contributions are described, and if I recall correctly, online references to Boyce' work that appear in established industry publications.

For goodness sakes, this is the man who put the banner ad on the map which put commercial Internet publishing in play. There's no dispute on either of these points. Whether or not search activity for his name is on par with the legions of people who search for nude photos of Britney Spears seems to me to be a ludicrous standard for inclusion in a serious reference work.

What can I do to have the Rick Boyce article restored and open a wikipedia-wide discussion on the topic of what is pertinent knowledge?

History starts with facts being recorded. How "popular" these facts are at any given moment of time seems to me to be to be an utterly irrelevant consideration.

Thanks again for your help.

- Nolatime

You can file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. That's the proper channel. Read the instructions and look over some past requests, especially successful ones, to see what's required and how to state your case. Be well. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman: Thank you for your kind help.

- Nolatime

'Freezone survivors'

Re 'Freezone survivors' website: please read the discussion page, this has been disputed before and should be discussed not used for yet another revert war. Messages also sent to others involved and discussion section opened. --Hartley Patterson 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I recommend that all involved re-read WP:EL. Some of the links were definitely the type that we normally avoid. Talk page discussions are great for building consensus, but that sort of agreement doesn't overrule WP policy. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right up your alley

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_check - this one went to ANI instead of COIN, interesting how persistent the spammer has been. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and so on

Sorry for the delayed answer [9]. COFS 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. RfA

Hi! :) I don't think there's need to actually add more to the comment you point out, as its author himself has been very open about his absence and the circumstances that brought him back to comment at that process. I'm unfortunately a little short of time to do an exhaustive check of every !vote right now, as I'm heading for work in a matter of minutes; please feel free to doublecheck any comments you believe necessary. I personally don't think that Elonka's RfA is highly irregular in either sense, nor supports nor opposes, considering the clearly contentious nature of the debate (and bearing in mind the events at similarly heated RfAs). I simply tagged an evidently disruptive addition, and it wouldn't have mattered to me whether it was a support or, as it was, an oppose. Still, it's best to keep a watchful eye to ensure the transparency of the process, so you're welcome to review other comments, and I'll try my best to stay vigilant. Have a beautiful day! :) Phaedriel - 13:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am rather shocked by the number of negative votes. It seems like many of them have legitimate beefs. Elonka seems to have improved her demeanor, but failed to patch up personal relationships with the people she's offended. That's a crucial mistake. People have long memories. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and I don't expect my own RfA ,if I ever go there again, will fare any more smoothly due to the ruckus I raised in the "WP:ATT War" and the cleaning up of WP:N late last year; I know that certain people still bear grudges about that period, and probably will 5 years from now. I just want to point out that not all of the opposes are from people she's tusselled with. I have no memory, long or short, to axe-grind about with her, and have never been offended by her. I just doubt her temperament and judgement in this regard. The third-person AfD defense, the pile of dubiously encyclopedic genealogical articles, the "this is my blog, part 2"-style user page, and many other factors are enough to give me (and as I read the oppose votes, plenty of others) cause for concern. It's unclear to me why Elonka even wants to be an admin, given her editing patterns, other than empowered deletionism. She's a fantastic contributor, problems aside (and recognizing that nearly 10K of her stats are robotic identical uncat twiddles, but even so, 20K "real" edits is nothing to sneeze at). But that doesn't mean she'd be a fantastic admin. No ill will on my part at all, just doubts as to appropriateness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Reporting as requested. Sounds like you have a more detailed response in mind than noting my hyperbolic complaint about hyperbole. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! It's an interesting issue to discuss. Danny is another example a lot like Elonka. He had a long history of speaking his mind so that RFA was very contentious. I believe they passed him with less than 70% support.

My point is that somebody like me or you with about 5,000 - 10,000 edits can probably sail through if we have behaved reasonably. Once the edit count is high enough that it can't be a reason to oppose, more edits can be a liability. If you edit enough, eventually there are conflicts, trolls and enemies. Due to human nature people remember grudges a lot longer than they remember an uneventful, friendly encounter. I try real hard not to make enemies, but I'm at Arbcom right now and some of the other participants could be unhappy if I give evidence against them. Maybe they will hold it against me later. Yeah, I could take the easy way out and not give evidence, but that would undermine Arbcom's ability to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. For doing the right thing I am potentially gaining oppose votes. Elonka's been around such a long time that a certain fraction of the objects are just a collection of assorted malcontents unhappy with specific past actions. They aren't looking at the overall picture.

Your point that there are a lot of valid objections is quite true. Many of the objections are well thought out and while I don't agree, I respect people who have good faith objections. What I disagree with are the retaliatory objections by fussy people who didn't get their way in a dispute. Those aren't helpful to Wikipedia.

What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm well over 20K, myself, and have been "speaking my mind" as you put it, so I would expect a big ruckus like Danny and Elonka. I see what you mean about the unhelpful grudge-based opposes. On the plus side, I've never been involved in an ArbCom, nor been RfCd, and I actively try to mediate disputes (I'm not in the Mediation Cabal, I just do it when I see it needs to be done.) Anyway, I would expect to get the "any editor with 20K-30K edits who isn't an admin yet must be Bad" so-called reasoning thrown at me, if I go there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeho, Calliopejen1 has about 10,000 edits combined (she had another username for which she forgot the password) and she didnt have any problem at all in being an admin. If you look at the first 10,000 edits of Elonka instead, you're bound to find problems e.g. say, her family articles with the COI stuff (and thats all I know, I'm sure there are more issues). Dont let mediocre or controversial people be admins. There are a lot of good people out there. If you let that go by, then the situation will get worse. Leaders are meant to be people who have wide undisputed support and Elonka is not one. I dont know about Danny's rfA so cant comment on that. Her previous rFa was also 68% and this one is about that too, which shows she didnt do anything to patch up and resolve conflicts. If you want her to be an admin, help her resolve all the stuff thats been pointed out by others. Once people dont have any issues with her any longer then she might succeed. And since you agree with me on the Muhammad images issue, that should have been something for you to consider seriously before supporting her. I've never taken part in an RfA before but I did in this one because of this issue which I felt strongly about and like Beit Or put it so right "An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on Talk:Kaaba. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy.". This issue alone should be enough to disqualify anyone from being an admin. There should be a near flawless record of people following policies and respecting them before they become an admin. Even if they make mistakes they should willing to admit which like someone said, Elonka doesnt do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Every successful admin candidate takes a different path, some longer than others. I wish Elonka had done a better job listening to your concerns so that you wouldn't feel the need to oppose her. If you feel that she didn't treat you fairly, you have every right to question her judgement and oppose until she sets things right. I personally wouldn't oppose because of a difference of opinion, even if she was dead wrong. But if she didn't treat you well, that's another story. Do you want to explain more about what happened? Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka is an unusual nomination in several ways. Very few Wikipedians have a history of 30,000 edits when they go through RFA. I had about 9000 when I got through and even now, as one of her nominators, I've got barely more than half of her number. She's also notable in her own right. Not a movie star, but notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia. In just the past two weeks National Public Radio interviewed her and she was featured on the PBS show Nova. Professionally, she runs a successful online community and she's a noted cryptologist. Commmon sense tells me we're lucky to have her here, unpaid, and willing to jump through so many hoops to acquire a set of tools that I have also (proudly) supported giving to high school students. The question is whether she operates within Wikipedia site standards. She didn't for the first several months; no doubt about that. She took her lumps for that and adjusted, but I suspect she's taking more lumps than she deserves.

I respect candid and well reasoned differences of opinion. I prefer that accusations be supported with diffs. Yet some of the goings-on at that RFA really reflect poorly on the Wikipedia community as a whole. And I think that discourages some of the people who really have impressive experience from stepping forward to help this site. Durova^Charge! 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok that doesnt matter. If I'm a CEO of 5 fortune 500 companies and am listed in Forbes magazine and what not, that all doesnt matter in my RfA. No one cares if she's notable and was featured in PBS. Please, put that all aside completely. You've co-nominated her for the wrong reasons if you've even partially considered these things. All that matters is like you said, if she operates within Wikipedia standards. For me, she doesnt. That Kaaba images issue was enough to disqualify her an an admin because of her totally ignoring WP:CENSOR. If she doesnt get the support of a 3rd of the community here then that says a lot. Now please, put aside her notability and all that stuff. As someone said, she should just continue her status as an editor. People arent given adminship because they're notable and have been interviewed by PBS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I've asked repeatedly for a link to any consensus discussion that established the use of the show/hide template as a violation of WP:CENSOR. Now, instead of providing one, you shift the argument and embark on a slippery slope. By your reasoning I could be accused of violating WP:CENSOR by reducing portraiture at Joan of Arc and adding photos of historical sites from her lifetime. The suggestion I make here is that Elonka brings skills and experience to the table that could be very valuable to Wikipedia - skills and experience most people don't have. I also suggest that, in some measure, the fact that she's notable and comes from a notable family may have caused a resentment that's operated against her. Most of us don't have biography articles on Wikipedia; most of us haven't walked a few miles in the WP:COI moccasins. So it's rather easy for those of us who haven't experienced both sides of that coin to take a hard line. I've nominated her because she's an excellent editor and an asset to the project. While I respect your right to disagree, you cross the line by accusing me of having chosen the wrong reasons for nomination and suggesting I failed to consider factors. You cannot read my mind. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Those allegedly rare skills and experience are applicable to high-quality editing in particular topic areas, but being a cryptographer and a software company spokesperson and a web-board operator do not, that I can see, provide unusual skills and experience that are especially applicable to being an admin. This RfA is not about whether to kick Elonka of of Wikipedia, it's about whether to give her additional responsibilities, in areas that in several cases she's already demonstrated problems with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeho, thanks for wanting to listen more. Oh she treated me and everyone alright. I've said in my Oppose there that she's a nice and polite user. The only thing is as I keep harping on, is that she ignored the CENSOR policy, a very strong one. I keep stressing on it because this is very important for me and I think its important for admins to respect the core policies of Wikipedia. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go guys, I'm not crazy. The latest oppose says: "She appears to believe she is right even when it is pointed out to her she is wrong, and evidence has been presented which shows she continues to hold judgements which are then overturned as not consensual.". Her failure to admit her wrongdoings has been pointed by many people on that page. Everyone is saying the same thing (hint) so there might be some truth to it. I have talked to her for the 11th time about the Kaaba issue myself and every time her answer is the same, she doesnt admit her wrongs and she keeps avoiding saying "Ok, I was wrong in wanting to replace the image". Nope, not her. But you know what, I dont care if she became an admin. It would be apparent soon that it was a bad decision. Some people have it, some dont, Elonka doesnt, no offense and niether do I for that matter but I never stood up for an adminship but I know if someone wont be a good admin and in this case I know she wont. I know you guys are trying to be nice and all, but please see it objectively and see the whole picture. Its not looking good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was at college, a school known for producing lots of professors, they had something carved in the wall in the dining room: "Do go into teaching for it is the only profession where anything other than total failure is a success." What that means is that when trying to teach other people you must expect that 90% of the time they won't get it, but that other 10% means you're successful. Elonka maybe didn't get it in that case, but polite, persistent appeal to reason combined with charm would eventually convince her to do the right thing. She's very smart, but kind of old (anyone older than me is old), so it could take a while to convince her to change her mind. Wikipedia is like the rest of the world. There are all kinds of people and we welcome them all. Don't be discouraged when people are thick. Just keep smiling and try again. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a good person, reasonable and kind. I thought you were an admin. I'd probably support you in an RfA. I'm talking to Elonka right now on the images issue. Lets see if she changes her response. I'll try to be gentle. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems very wise. Thank you for the compliments. Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"5 edits for every dispute-involving edit"

Ok I'm taking it here then. You said you've given the same advice. I want to see what advice you gave exactly in what situation. I already know without seeing it that its different from what Elonka gave. Lets see then. "Try to have 5 edits for every dispute-involing edit", this is really teaching another user to game the system. This is not good advice to give to another user, coming from an admin. I'd like to see the exact words you used. Is it a coincidence that the diff you pointed out suddenly raised my eyebrow? I had seen people saying Elonka was manipulative but I always wondered what she had done that caused them to draw that conclusion, but this was it and that might just be the tip of the iceberg as I havent seen a lot of contribs (except for our issue of the Muhammad images). If you cant tell me the exact advice that you gave, then I mean there's no point and I'll disregard your statement of "I said the same thing", because I know its not the same. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was a kid, my social skills weren't so good. I was very, very good at math, and still am. Elonka is a cryptologist and programmer, very much like me. People like us are often misunderstood because we think differently from most people. It took me a long time and a lot of effort to improve my social skills and become a half-way decent writer. I still tend to think in terms of numbers and rules. Structure gives me comfort. Elonka is the same way. You are seeing her thoughts through your own perspective, rather than through her perspective. She's not being manipulative. She just prefers to think in numbers. Her advice isn't "Do 5:1 so you can fool people into thinking your not an SPA." No, she's saying, "Do 5:1 and you actually for real won't be an SPA."

My advice was given confidentially off Wiki. Basically I pointed out that I have a 40% mainspace edit ratio--about 2,000 mainspace edits of 5,000 total. This admin had only a 10% ratio, and was starting to see trolls and villains everywhere. My advice was to watch that ratio and keep it reasonable. Elonka is giving similar advice: Don't spend more than 20% of your time with disputes. Make sure you spend 80% of your time doing productive work. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what she said "Do 5:1 so you can fool people into thinking your not an SPA" ([10]). Your advice was different. It was to someone who was an admin and who was possibly dealing with trolls. For example there might be someone who deals with people who push POV and stuff and someone has to do the job of resolving issues etc. Anyway, I'm not convinced inspite of her reply. That was not good advice to give to anyone in my opinion. A person should be advised to be honest. They shouldnt be advised to put on a different face, one thats not natural. Thats like saying "When you go to court to fight your speeding ticket, make sure you've done some public volunteer work and the judge will likely forgive you." (suppose its possible). Not really ethical advice, I'd say. I would not like to see advice like that being given in public atleast. If an admin said that to another user, one might think its part of policy. Imagine a new user being greeted with "If you are going to fight on this website, please maintain 5 edits for every fight-related edit. This will make sure no one can complain against you and get you blocked", lol. This is what it is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the diff again. "Keep things balanced. Try not to focus on your dispute, but also spend time editing other parts of Wikipedia at the same time. " Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that but the bottomline is that telling another user on how to avoid being labelled as an SPA is not ethical advice coming from an admin. Its not appropriate for an admin to give that advice publicly atleast. An admin should give advice that is part of policy. If policy gives that advice, then there's no issue. This is like saying "Here's how to avoid being labelled as a sockpuppet". Not right. Anyway, I'm not going to be too active on that RfA page unless there's something interesting to point out. Its going to end soon anyway. My strong opposition to her and I've told her this, is her unapologetic attempt of removal of Muhammad images from the Kaaba article. We have had enough people trying to remove these historic relevant images. I would definitely not like to see someone become an admin who doesnt have any regard for the WP:CENSOR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that particular image issue, by the way. It seems like Elonka will end up with 70%/30% which probably means no consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And...if you run into difficulties with that article, please let me know and I will try to help. Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I think you are misreading Elonka's words. She was telling the editor how to prove he was not an single purpose account (not a sockpuppet, by the way!), not how to fool someone into thinking that he was not an SPA or "avoid being labelled a sockpuppet". Balance is a good thing and I think Elonka should be congratulated for taking the time to work with the editor, not martyred because she added a numerical example to otherwise sound advice. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeho, wanted to ask you something. Elonka had made a lot of family articles before, which were a COI interest. Is it possible for her to get involved now with cleaning them up now and stuff, or she cant touch them at all? I'm not familiar with the COI policy, but I plan to look at those articles and delete unsourced OR and maybe AfD any non-notable ones. Now that they're a bad record for her, is there any way she can deal with them? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote several chunks of the current COI guideline. She can definitely get involved in cleaning up as long as her edits aren't controversial. Anybody, even a COI editor, can remove spam, and enforce WP:BLP by deleting unsourced, original research. She can also add suggestions and identify references on the talk pages so that other editors can fix the articles. The COI guideline has some flexibility. Elonka has said that she would be glad to help, but I think she may be fearful that this could be cited against her. Perhaps we can all get together and agree that she should help clean up these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I did it now. I started with this. Instead of being upset that I'm doing this for her family articles, she should be happy that this is a chance to clear up her record and remove the concerns that people have. I'll contact her about this. If its not notable, it has to go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding Justanother and myself

I appreciate your concerns Jehochman. In my view Justanother has been a problem editor. He is following the exact same pattern as User:Terryeo. Any suggestions on what to do about him? Any are welcome.--Fahrenheit451 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best strategy will be to let editors who are not directly involved in the edit disputes surrounding Scientology handle things. Very soon I am hoping that the Scientology articles will be put on article probation, and that will help reduce the nonsense that goes on there. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All right. I hope that works and the problems with those articles/editors gets straightened out. It should not have to be this way.--Fahrenheit451 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, but this is like a big knot that needs to be untangled one thread at a time. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but comment here about F451's characterization of Justanother being as bad as User:Terryeo. Although I have disagreed with at least 70 percent of Justanother's edits, I have to say that he is at least rational (if to a fault), understands Wikipedia policy very well, and has never stooped to any of the low, low lows that Terryeo (or Misou) have. If you closely compared the contribution pages of F451, Justanother, and Terryeo, I think it would be immediately evident who has contributed more to Wikipedia - and who has done practically nothing but harangue other editors. Don't take my word for it - look at the contributions pages, they say it all. wikipediatrix 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed several thousand edits of these editors so I am well aware of their tendencies. Part of the problem is that the environment around these articles is so caustic that even somebody with good intentions can become frustrated to the point that they behave out of character. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's analysis. I see that there are a variety of views by each scientology article editor on the character and contributions of other scientology article editors.--Fahrenheit451 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin

For what it's worth, my objection was limited in scope, and not intended to be a call to arms. Please see the conversation at User talk:Matt57#Stanley Dunin edit. This is just in case you think you're supporting me in an edit war or something; I try to avoid them in general, and in this particular case doubly want to avoid it, since it could so easily turn into a "people who like Elonka/people who dislike Elonka" faction fight, which would be really bad, not just in general, but also for Elonka.

If you have opinions about the article, maybe you could join the talk page, where Matt has started Talk:Stanley Dunin#Looking for 3rd party non-triviel reliable sources on Stanley Dunin ? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that he shouldn't gut the articles when the proper solution may be AfD, or digging up the references. He seems to misunderstand policy. (1) I think most of these people are dead, so BLP isn't an issue, and (2) the standard for OR is references don't exist, not we've been too lazy to add the references. I am not at all convinced that he's looked for references.

Matt and I get along pretty well. I don't think he'll view this as an edit war. I've also left him a friendly note. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 05:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Antoni Dunin

About this, its not a BLP issue. Its a notability tag. So what was that all about? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done

Replied on my talk page as it seems to have become the venue for the discussion :) I saw no problems with indef blocking in this instance as they clearly know what they are doing, have been warned repeatedly and blocked once before. Orderinchaos 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your help. Complex vandalism cases often don't get handled properly at AIV because they are specialized for the routine type of case. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) Feel free to let me know if you need assistance again - I'm almost always available if my contribs are going. Anyway, off to bed now (1:49am in Perth atm)... Orderinchaos 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

article probation

I definitely endorse your idea of placing the Scientology articles on probation, but it would have to be all the Scientology articles, and that's quite a large number. I'm not sure this many articles have ever been placed on probation all at once, and I'm not sure how easily they could be monitored by ArbCom.

This unwieldiness is what's kept the articles in chaos for so long. Sometimes as many as thirty different edit-wars have gone on at once on various articles, and impartial editors (like myself) who wish to keep both pro- and anti-Scn points of view from having undue weight, must either make it a full-time job or pick one's battles, letting some of them go. This always works to the anti-Scn editors' advantage, because almost all the editors are quite vocally and rabidly anti-Scn and make no bones about that, both on-wiki and on their own anti-Scn websites off-wiki.

I'd love to see these articles taken permanently out of all our hands. wikipediatrix 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, sorry to see you want nothing to do with editing scientology articles. Nobody is forcing you to edit those right now, as far as I know. I have to question your views on the so-called, anti-Scn editors. What is your criteria for anti-scn editors, and of those, which ones have off-wiki websites?--Fahrenheit451 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are about 300 Scientology articles, one for every 33 Scientologists. Perhaps some could be merged. In any case, there would probably be a page where editors with grievances could report them, and some of us would monitor that page and take appropriate action. Chances are that escalating blocks would be issued for infractions. This would calm things down quickly, I think. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for the help on OIC's talk page, much appreciated. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Permanent links to ANI sections

Hi, Jehochman. I noticed your link to the ANI discussion of Ideogram on WP:CSN didn't work. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create permanent links to ANI threads and other page sections. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for this tip. I've always wondered how to do that. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments in RfC

Your comments in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 seem out of place; shouldn't they be on the talk page? It also seems to me that if you're the "overseeing admin," then you need to be very careful about unsupported allegations; if ideogram has been a sock puppet, please link the evidence; if the new guy might be a sock, do a checkuser and find out. If they are what you allege, can we just remove them, so that the RfC is not distracted by them? Dicklyon 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you did link the evidence on ideogram, and I agree he's a sockpuppetter; I haven't looked at whether he's abusive, but I'll take your word for it; I don't know why he decided to involve himself in this matter with DreamGuy. As for User:You Are Okay, I think your guess is way off base; he's just a newbie spammer who had his first three contribs reverted by DreamGuy and then noticed the proceedings very his talk page and decided to pile on; not a sock, just a distraction; I've asked him to withdraw. It's no big surprise that he used the "cite web" template, since he just copied the line above where he put his link. Dicklyon 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that ideogram has withdrawn, and confirmed (on User talk:Ideogram#Why the DreamGuy involvement?) that he's not related to User:You Are Okay, can we just take all the noise out of the RfC page? Can you look at my comments on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram and retract that suspect please? I've also asked him to withdraw. Dicklyon 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you have a conflict with DreamGuy, and want to prevail, but the ends don't justify the means. I am not going to ignore when Ideogram and his socks disrupt things and create a false impressions against DreamGuy. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should ignore it, but he's not the one creating the impression, just muddying the water. But, no matter, if that's what you think is fair. Dicklyon 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I must agree that your speculation about User:You Are Okay is distracting and unwarranted – Until there is evidence connecting them, I'd request that you remove that comment. I'm also wondering why you signed as "overseeing admin" when you are not an admin? Thanks :) --Quiddity 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was the overseeing admin. I signed as my user name. The note was meant to be addressed to the overseeing admin, so I fixed it. I stand by my investigation. You Are Okay is a suspected sock puppet of Ideogram. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Barcode-printer.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barcode-printer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a sock?!?

Are you kidding? Anyway, when I started editing I made clear several times that I previously edited without logging in. The IP was variable, however the current IP is: 91.125.109.6. I edited from June to mid-July without logging in before getting an account, which probably explains why I had some familiarity with procedure. An example IP address that I previously used is 80.189.177.227.--Addhoc 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of being a sock. I did look at the possibility because you were aligned with a known sock puppeteer. From the evidence, this isn't likely, but you do have some funny edits to your userpage that raised a suspicion worth investigating. I've struck your name on the list to make this clear to anyone who looks. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony

Don't template the regulars, especially those who may know very well what they are doing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, nobody is above the rules. I'll template Jimbo if he steps out of line. I started with a friendly personal message, and Tony just ignored that completely. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template with the edit summary "false vandalism warning". I suggest you read WP:Vandalism to see what is considered vandalism. Further such actions will be interpreted as a violation of WP:DISRUPT and as such will be properly dealt with. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 09:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You can do what you like. I'm not going to edit war with you all. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the bother, Jersey Devil. That bit of cluelessness only confirms my feeling that the noticeboard is being abused of late by people who don't understand how Wikipedia works but want to hustle some action anyhow. --Tony Sidaway 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. On my talk page, please don't use insults like "hustle some action" against me. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No insult intended. Just don't make any more false accusations against bona fide editors, and stick to your promise not to edit war, and I think we'll manage to rub along. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There's no need to delete cases when they can instead be summarily closed and archived. That way a searchable record remains available. This may even serve your interests if you ever want to demonstrate the pattern of cases being filed on this board. Searching archives is much easier than searching diffs, eh. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay. I've had a chat with Jehochman about this little flareup. I will also quite happily unblock him or any other editor who gets blocked for "violating" an essay. Please, let's all chill. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Media Optimisation

I personally disagree with Wikipedia linking only to 'trusted' sources. It presents a very narrow version of the web and serves only those sources (which are often stuffed with ads). Having said that, I don't really care about the link. It was the best page I could find on the subject. Perhaps a suggestion on a more appropriate page to link to would be better than simply removing the link. --Kalpha 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are disagreeing with a fundamental policy. If you want to see what an encyclopedia looks like when there are no standards for sources, try Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's not very useful for anything except trolling and flaming. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know when you last checked the article but there is currently a nonsensical section called Social Media Index. I don't see that as very different to the link I chose if this is the 'policy'. Thanks. Kalpha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam happens. I've cleaned it up, and you are most certainly welcome to delete spam any time you see it. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kalpha

Admin coaching graduation

Jehochman, I think you're ready for RFA whenever you want it. Due to reasons we've discussed offline I won't be your admin coach anymore and won't be participating at your RFA when it happens. I have the highest respect for your abilities and you shouldn't have any trouble getting a nominator when you decide the time is right. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova, for all your help. I really appreciate the time you spent teaching me. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

It says:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So it doesnt matter if the person is dead or alive. If its unreferenced, its OR and it has to go. I know the AfD's wont work because soldiers will come to defend the articles and it will remain a no-consensus even though there's no reliable 3rd party coverage, so I'm going to start with deleting the OR first. Anyone else who responds and complains about my actions - I dont care about what you are going to say and wont respond to it, unless it is to bring reliable 3rd party sources for that group of articles. Do what you want now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you're not listening when multiple people warn you to take it easy. I don't see anyone else supporting you. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Matt has a good point. Original research should not be the basis for an article; whilst if there is no reliable 3rd party references which support the assertions made, the info, or article should be tagged and deleted. I am not sure why the same standards that apply to other Wikipedia contributions should not apply to the articles that Matt has been concerned with? •CHILLDOUBT• 13:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In this situation it looks like Matt has an axe to grind because he was so partisan at Elonka's RfA. I've said that these articles are deficient, that they might be worth AfD, and that we should get neutral parties to look at them. I'm friends with Elonka, so I'd rather not get too deeply involved. We should try to recruit editors who can be completely objective. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone finally agreed with me, thanks Chilldoubt. I have had people gang up on me in every way on this affair, which was completely unnecessary, a waste of time and assumption of bad faith. But thats ok, I'm following policies and I know I'm doing the right uncontestable thing (taking out unreferenced OR).

Jeho, please forget about the axe to grind. I have none. I'm doing everything fairly now. Let me know about your RfA though, I'll support it. I doubt there's going to be any opposition. I'll ask for your advice in my next step for Antoni Dunin. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram socks

Hi Jehochman, all the socks listed in that case have been blocked already (unless I missed something). If there are other suspected/confirmed socks that aren't listed in the SSP case, please let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a qualified source

Something that is used as a verifiable source in 190 different Wikipedia articles, and has been used in Google News on 439 different occasions meets the criteria for a verifiable source. Wikipedia's resources demonstrate that. See WP:V

It is particularly odd that a person from WMF has chosen personally to edit out that link. Why are you trying to cover it up? 123.2.168.215 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but unless the community decides otherwise, I am going to treat this as POV pushing and COI. It sure looks like you're using this Korean site to publish your own original research and then cite it into Wikipedia. Please refrain from making further comments on my talk page. I am going to start a case at WP:COIN where you can discuss this with the community. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving at WP:COIN

Hello Jehochman. After being nudged by Athaenara, I'm thinking of adding a bot archiving template to WP:COIN. Timeout is negotiable, but Athaenara has suggested 14 days. Let me know if you would object, since I know you are active on the noticeboard. EdJohnston 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I love bots. I use one on this talk page. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos incident at Elonka's RFA

Administrator Mackensen reports that "there are socks afoot. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) is also Zivko85 (talk · contribs) and DanielT5 (talk · contribs)." Apparently OIC voted against Elonka three times. I guess he feels very strongly. More details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2#Sockpuppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll find part of the expaination for TY blocks at User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets. Gnangarra 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look at that. Do you have any other background info that might be useful? Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TY created a walled garden around Aquinas College, Perth that would have been the envy of every Babylonian architect. We (Perth based Admins) used a number of different approaches to break through these walls and get the various editors on track, two editors eventually received numerous blocks they were Twenty Years (talk · contribs) and Auroranorth (talk · contribs) to which they responded with establishing sockpuppets. Both have since been unblock with conditions on how/what they can edit over the next three months These issues had been the catalyst for this essay though it originally cover the actions of a number of students from private schools in WA, the schools had recently introduced a community service requirement into the high school certificate. The essay has since been expanded to cover the broader subject of school based articles. Gnangarra 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say there's no evidence of any sort of vote stacking related to these accounts. Thank you for confirming that. Do you know if these folks attend school with any other Wikipedians who've been "voting". OIC has taken responsibility for his actions and made adjustments. I am glad he has done so because that reduces the need for any sort of external remedies. Nevertheless, it is troubling that an admin and his very close friends formed a voting block in contravention of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. I am wondering if we've discovered the full extent of the problem, or if there are any other undisclosed friends who are part of the scheme. Hopefully with a bit more due diligence we can eliminate any doubt about the results of this RFA. I've asked Rebbecca to chat. Perhaps she can help us clear this up. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one other of the school editors still editing and after checking the complete edit history of the RfA he hasnt participated. Gnangarra 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I feel feel really bad for OIC because even in just the short discussion I had with him, he impressed me. Hopefully he will move beyond this, and I certainly am willing to forgive him. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incident involving Twenty Years

Hey, thanks for the note. Basically what User:Gnangarra and User:TheWinchester said is basically it. I have clarified it. Cheers for the note. Twenty Years 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I am glad to see that you have resiliency. If you write a good or featured article, I will gladly give you a barnstar. If you need any copy editing help, just let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot. If you're open to copyediting...i am working on this which is a majorly edited version of Aquinas College, Perth, an article ive worked on since Nov 2006, which is currently GA-Class. Anything you could help with would be much appreciated. Cheers. Twenty Years 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When you are ready to launch that version, tell me and I will give it a good copy editing and make it suitable for FAC. I prefer to work on live versions. You should have no problem getting it promoted if things are as they appear. Is this your first FAC? Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When i put it up, this will be the second time i have put this article up for FAC, althought this has been up for FAC 3 times previous. This is (in all wikitime) 2nd FAC nomination... Twenty Years 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ive posted the article live into article-space and was wondering if you could copy-edit it as to get it ready for FAC. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm presenting at a conference this week so my time is short, but I will look at it as soon as I can. Promise! - Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Proxy puppets

I tried answering your query on the talk page at WP:SOCK, and found someone else having the same problem, so I tossed this out for consideration. If you want to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Zercle.com

Hi Jehochman,

Since you're into search, I thought I would inform you of Zercle, which is a new search engine that I've just launched to help people find all of the non-fiction books that are available in a given category, and at the same time help authors make sure that their books are easily discoverable by interested book consumers. I think we all know from bitter experience that compiling a complete list of books available in a category of interest on Amazon is either impossible or would require an infinite amount of time and effort. Yet, such a list is exactly what we need when we embark on the book shopping process.

Zercle works kind of like Wikipedia in that the "book groups" are created, edited and maintained by volunteer editors. Unlike Wikipedia, however, Zercle editors are required to register and are supposed to be "knowledgeable enough" in the book categories that they edit.

I've already started building a few groups on Zercle myself, in the "quantum mechanics" area, since I'm knowledgeable enough there (BS Physics). If you enter "quantum mechanics" into the Title box on the front page you'll see those groups. If you also enter, say, "Griffiths" into the Author box, you'll see the specific group which contains the QM book written by that author. I've only just started these groups, so none of them are yet complete. But, as I've already alluded, the idea is to eventually have groups that are complete, so that users can easily discover what books are available in their categories of interest, and authors can pretty much be guaranteed that users have an easy way of discovering their book.

Zercle editors will employ a unique method (which I think I invented) to extract the "main topics" and "threads" from the core subject of a book, and use this information to determine what group or groups a book belongs in (if a book's core subject has X threads, the book can be in up to X different groups, one for each thread). This analytical method may be a key breakthrough that allows Zercle to succeed in human-powered search where so many other engines have fallen short. (The Zercle system, if it works for books, may also be applicable to the Web in general.)

As yet, Zercle is definitely not "notable", since it was just launched and there's no big money behind it like with Mahalo. In fact, there's no money at all behind it. It took me four years (without income) to work out the Zercle system, so you can only imagine... But that's another story.

Please check out Zercle and follow the "About" link for more info. I think a lot of Wikipedians would make ideal Zercle editors, and some of them probably need a new editing outlet anyway, so I'm trying to figure out ways of informing them about Zercle without breaking Wikipedia policies. If you have any ideas about how I can get the message out (especially to Wikipedians and others who are conscientious and knowledgeable in nonfiction book categories) please let me know: paul at zercle dot com. By the way, you would probably make a great Zercle editor yourself in some category areas -- computer science, or whatever -- hint hint.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you find Zercle to be fun and useful. Any feedback such as comments, questions or suggestions is welcome.

Emwave 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS

Are going to warn or block editors about their violation of Harass, David Shankbone has done it again and is violating WP:Stalk and he is forum shopping, hope that helps. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Supply diffs and I will warn anybody who steps out of line. Note: I am not an administrator. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep reading the thread you warned me from and you should get to it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed - eComXpo article conflict and personal attacks

Hello Jonathan,

I have a big problem going on at the article to eComXpo and need help from somebody who is not part of this yet. I know that you work with the groups that address arbitration and COI issues and ask for your help and advice in this matter.

1. Article page eComXpo
2. See AfD Debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
3. Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#EComXpo - still open, but discussion is relevant
4. Talk Page Talk:EComXpo#Confirmed_COI - from that paragraph downwards, although previous sections are also relevant

Since allegations were made that I have a conflict of interest (see my argumentation on the talk page to prove otherwise), which were not dismissed by a neutral party, did I not report the acts of User:Cerejota as vandalism, nor restored deleted article content or removed any of the many tags that were added to the article by the same user. I am unable to proceed in this matter without breaking Wikipedia guidelines and policies myself. It probably requires the involvement of one or more administrators who are experts in this kind of situations to resolve the conflict. Another editor, who I don't know got now also involved, while he was attempting to help with the improvement of the article and ran into problems with this user as well. The arguments against him during the AfD nor the deletion review deterred User:Cerejota to continue with his seemingly personal war against the article and anybody who is involved with it. All attempts by other editors (not just me) to resolve this issue were so far unsuccessful. Please help to resolve this. Thank you. I appreciate it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan: Be aware I have raised a formal request for mediation around this issue. I do so under WP:DR, ignoring MedCab because of the seriousness of some of the things User:Cumbrowski has said. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and WP:BLP

WP:BLP says that blogs "never" can be used as a reliable source in an article about a living person, and is very strict about it. I agree with you on the larger question that that sweeps too many reliable sources into the wrong bin (Talking Points is probably a lot more reliable than a number of dead-tree publications we cite, especially when it comes to things like Cuban-government-controlled newspapers), but the policy is the policy, and I was just applying it. THF 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We should fix this because it cuts both ways. I am sure there are online sources you'd like to use. Keep in mind that calling something a "blog" doesn't mean that it is self-published with no editorial control. I have successfully argued that "blogs" with editorial staff and fact checking can be used as reliable sources. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said as much at WP:RS/N#Overlawyered. Administratively, I can see the advantage of a simple bright-line rule, as it avoids wikilawyering on a slippery slope and reduces the number of disputes, but then you have publications falling on the wrong side of the line. Not immediately clear to me which is better and, like you said, I should avoid contentious disputes. THF 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For certain topics there's no way to write about them with accuracy unless we refer to online media. For instance, social media. How are we going to get the straight scoop if we listen to what traditional media are saying? That doesn't make sense.

I received a funny email today from an attorney who claims that you railroaded her off Wikipedia. I deleted it because editors usually don't get banned without good reason, and if they have a real issue, they should email an Arbcom member, not little ole' me. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman. Jumping up with alarm at the slightest mention of Social media, I can't recommend that you use that article as a good example of where blogs are needed. (See the discussion at its recent AfD, which it unwisely survived). A better example might be RSS, where a lot of the design process occurred through online interaction, and where our Wikipedia article refers to blog postings by the principal authors of various specs. EdJohnston 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Social media is a multi-billion USD industry. Shame on us and our incomplete encyclopedia if we decide this isn't worthy of coverage.  ;-) The current article sucks. In the future it will be better. Many good sources are online media. Often these are called "blogs" when in fact they are e-magazines and e-journals. Remember, there's nothing magic about paper. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology lockdown

Quite awhile back, you intimated that a semi-permanent lockdown of sorts on Scientology articles was in the works - whatever became of this, and how can it be hastened? wikipediatrix 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the scientology-related articles have revert wars going on and Wikipediatrix is one of the participants. I wonder if she wants her version locked down.--Fahrenheit451 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, following me around and adding an unhelpful and insulting insinuation after my every post. I don't care whose version remains, as long as the articles are permanently taken out of all the squabbler's hands, including mine. wikipediatrix 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you include your sticky little hands too, Wikipediatrix :-)--Fahrenheit451 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you all check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision, you'll see that article probation has been added to the proposed remedies. That will calm things down, I hope, so you can go about your editing without all these problems. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja

Jehochman,

Thank you for intervening in the revert war between myself and Landsfarthereast. I accept the edits you've made to both pages save one. The Szwaja 2007 section being 90% about past problems of Szwaja's and even editing out anything any other media said about him or mentioning the issues he stated he is running on. I feel that for balance, at least some of this should be included. Mikesmash 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but cite news sources, not campaign websites. If he's taken a stand on an issue, the media will have reported on that. Make sure your statement is neutral and adheres to what the source says. Also, if you are in any way affiliated with the campaign, either as a paid staffer, or as a volunteer, you'll be better off making suggestions to the article talk pages, and letting somebody who's uninvolved edit the article. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re jumping in

thanks ,but please leave him a note as well. he just edited his user page to remove the admissions of original content, etc. etc, and left a lengthy list of places that cite his articles. However, most either acknowledge that it's a rumor, or that it's jsut a good link for content also available elsewhere, making him, as you suspect, mostly a spammer. Review of his website, and those formerly available at the now deleted WP article about him, looks like it's all startup type stuff, hoping to become big, and I suspect a lot of the 'scoops' that others report, he submitted. ThuranX 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left him a warning, custom crafted. We need an admin to block this fellow. When they are doing 100% spam, no amount of warnings will deter them. He's not interested in Wikipedia, except as a means of advertising. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to agree. ThuranX 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Desert bayou for G11. it's mostly written and produced by him and his friends, all of whome appeared onteh pages from the article Adam Fendelman, which I got speedied yesterday. This guy's irritatingly prolific if nothing else. ThuranX 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yes. If he'd been reasonable, I'd have given him a few tips how to promote his site the right way. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Durova, recognize Jehochman with the Triple Crown for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Godden page

Hello. I had worked (briefly) on both this and the Szwaja page. I reverted that removal you did of the criticism and kudos for the Godden canidate. It seems to be worthwhile info, but I have no idea why those two are fighting so much over it. Rather than give in to silly pushing on either side, I think it ought to stay in, but might need some tweaking. I see you're a good copyeditor; would you mind looking? It's all this content. Please let me know what you need me to do... • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. Welcome. One of our important rules is that statement needs to be sourced to reliable sources. The stuff I removed was sourced to campaign websites and editorials. These are not appropriate sources for a Wikipedia article. If you'd like to restore some of the content, you should find references to actual news articles. Unfortunately, the article was a real mess of POV pushing. The article seemed to violate WP:NPOV because all those unsourced statements were used to push opinions into the article. If you'd like more opinions on this, you may list the case at WP:RSN. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts about eComXpo?

Hello Jehochman. I see that eComXpo is burning up a lot of electrons over at WP:COIN. The issue seems to have drawn only the issue-specific people to comment, those who have been following it from one forum to the next. I note you are listed as being a speaker at that conference, which is not of great interest to me at present, since I just want to know if you have any inspiration for how the COI noticeboard should address it. I know you are one of the more faithful commenters on issues at that noticeboard. There seems to be a long-running struggle between XDanielx (talk · contribs) and Cerejota (talk · contribs) about this article.

My first thought is that they should be scolded for silly capitalization, per WP:MOSTM. That probably won't go to the heart of the matter, though. The simplest response would be to say: This is forum-shopping! You've already exhausted AfD and DRV, so this isn't a novel problem. Pursue WP:DR if you want to, and stop bothering us. However there might be a more high-minded and sensible way to address this. Can you think of anything?

The present form of the article does not look bad to me. The idea of having an all-virtual trade show seems novel enough (at present) to deserve a little bit of space in WP. Cerejota's view that the original sources were mostly low-quality is probably correct, except for Steve Johnson's internet column for the Chicago Tribune. His work is not spam. The August 1, 2007 article in the Washington Post is not spam. There are a number of commenters who feel that Cerejota has gutted their article. I don't feel a need to go into the thousands of words of discussion, but I'd be willing to accept the present form of the article as an OK compromise version. As part of the compromise, the tags would have to be removed.

Apparently the issue was just submitted for mediation, but it was rejected because Calton did not agree. The last AfD and the DRV have justified the existence of an article, and our job is to be sure that what survives is reasonably fair and neutral. I know this should really be posted at COIN and not here, but I don't want to stir up the furies just yet. What do you think? EdJohnston 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1. There's no real COI here. 2. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the correct path. 3. I like your idea of telling the combatants to back off and stop bothering us at WP:COIN. Somewhere in the the COIN header we should make clear that we won't look favorably upon cases filed by people who are trying to get the upper hand in content disputes. I think Roy has a legitimate complaint about that. He's neither the owner nor the organizer. My involvement with this trade show is extremely slight. I'm just going to give a 10 minute speach over the web. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment That there is another conflict going on should be looked at separately. One editor used the COI allegation against another editor (me) to prevent valid edits to the article. The noticeboard should only look at that allegation and make a decision if COI applies to the editor (me) regarding that article. The other problem needs to be discussed elsewhere. I am building my case for that, but don't know yet where the right place is, to bring this forward. My allegations against the other editor will be severe, but nothing of the concern of the WP:COIN. My 2 cents. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed. xDanielx got involved when the DR started and only had a problem with how cerejota was acting. The whole issue started when user Cerejota entered the AfD debate that was started by somebody else for a different reason. He claimed WP:PROD, which was dismissed. He failed in the attempt to get the article deleted and turned around cripling the article instead under the disguise of being a good editor (after the fact). That other editor who started the AfD changed his opinion btw. and voted in favor of keeping the article at the DR. User Calton is only a supporter of Cerejota and not actively involved in the discussion. The discussion is very hard to look at from the outside and just looking at the comments and actions without putting them in the correct order when they appeared might paint a different picture. I spent the time to put things into a timeline with references to diffs at my user pages here:User:Cumbrowski/eComXpo_Incident_Cerejota. Just FYI. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should back off and let these people do what they like. This is a wiki. The content can always be restored later. Your efforts will be better spent to organize a WikiProject for Internet Marketing. If you can get a dozen or more editors interested in the topic, problems like this will disappear. We need a group of reasonable editors who can watch these articles. Just you or me is not enough. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Job screwing up the University of Florida page

Because of your edits, it made the UF page seem dull and boring. I think you owe it to the UF community to edit the page to make it better. I have tried numerous times to revert your edits, however I keep getting the door slammed in my face. It is only fair, that because you started this mess, that you fix up the page. Thank you. WOverstreet 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WOverstreet, not a marketing brochure. I suggest you have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply

Saw your note -- I've got an unusually busy day at work today (a thesis defense, two classes, and a proposal due Wednesday) so probably won't be able to look through the case in a timely manner. Raymond Arritt 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I supported your RfA, so you still owe me some mopping.  :-) - Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh.. be careful or we'll make you an admin. Can I assume you got it sorted? Raymond Arritt 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to report that GSGOSMTH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't been sorted yet. If you look at his talk page my note there explains things. It shouldn't take too long to verify. Being an admin may have its drawbacks, but as you must have experienced yourself, bothering other people ever time something needs handling isn't the best situation. I once spotted a vandal hitting 5 - 10 articles per minute, and it was an awful feeling to be powerless against that. At AN/I they wanted to see four warnings, but the guy kept switching IP addresses. Finally I tracked down a friendly admin. She started blocking IPs one after another and finally he just quit. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a role account. The other aspects were borderline: multiple accounts are allowed as long as they are not being used abusively, e.g., for vote-stacking, deliberately evading 3RR and the like. And yes, some admins are more by-the-book than others with respect to warnings. If someone is clearly up to no good I'll block them even if they haven't received any warnings, with no more qualms than I'd have over swatting a mosquito. No complaints so far. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You were confirmed by a landslide, so you have more authority. When I need help I don't just go to any administrator. Thanks! - Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! September 11 is generally a sad day, so it's nice to receive greetings. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja Edit summaries

I thought I had...? Like so? • Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just forgot two in a row. I didn't dig too deeply. Happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you mind giving it another once-over when you can? I've just spent about 20+ edits cleaning and arranging it. • Lawrence Cohen 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization revert

Hi,

The source you referred as unreliable on the SEO article reference (SEO must change and so must Google) is already referenced on the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 as a unique authority on the subject.

You might consider reverting it back.

YAM

If you disagree with me, you can file a request at WP:RSN to get a community opinion as to whether this is a reliable source or not. Also, remember to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ - Jehochman ^Talk 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You instantly removed the Web 2.0 reference I had just mentioned to you earlier without even bothering to read the article itself. This reference had been present on the article for a substantial amount of time, being subject to constant review and revision by a majority of the editors that frequent the article. This proved that it was a reliable source as deemed by the majority of editors.

There is no need to refer it to t WP:RSN since it had been subject to various revisions for a long time now. Before removing it, YOU should have referred it to WP:RSN to get an opinion as to whether it was worth removing.

YAM 08:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. You're being disruptive, so I am now going to file a report on WP:AN/I. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reminded you of WP:CIVIL on your talk page. Try to stay cool. My nearly 6,000 edits and collection of barnstars are a signal that I'm a fairly trusted editor around here. You inserted that link in July 2007. It's a busy article, so nobody noticed. That's not an argument to keep the source. There was no overt discussion of the source. Please, try WP:RSN, or at least propose the source on Talk:Web 2.0 and give everyone a chance to comment. Those are two easy ways to avoid a dispute. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"a pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology, enabling significantly easier development of new business-models and processes by using readily-available intuitive modular elements"

Hi, before removing this paragraph at Web 2.0 which is clearly high quality educational material, please discuss it at the appropriate place. Removing it clearly does not serve the greater cause of knowledge. YAM 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

To me, that "high quality educational material" is a bunch of buzzwords stitched together. I have a masters degree in computer science, and am a professional web developer. Listen, you're not scoring points by continuing to argue with me. In fact, you're being disruptive, and I am asking you not to post on my talk page again. I recommend that you take this issue to either WP:RSN or Talk:Web 2.0. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your credentials are not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what the reference says. If you believe it is not relevant material fit to be in Wikipedia, please take it to the appropriate discussion. Arbitrary high handed measures cannot be tolerated, no matter whom they are coming from.

YAM 09:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

WP:BIO / WP:N For The Security Field

I have one very specific question. I'm working from a close reading of [Uncle_G] (I know that's dicta, not binding precedent or guidelines) and the definition of [questionable sources]. My concern is the technology industry trade press. I personally get a lot of trade press hits. I'm intimate with how that process works. Regarding "reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight" --- even in mainstream tech pubs, there is very little oversight for anything that isn't a cover story. Articles are routinely placed based on press releases or outreach. The typical 400 word trade press release undergoes no fact checking, is based on a 10 minute phone interview, and is dictated almost entirely by the subject of the article; even quotes for perspective from third parties in these articles can be chosen by the subject. The primary criteria for inclusion in the trade press is proximity to whatever trend is being reported this week and the reporter's own deadlines. I therefore don't believe most trade press hits qualify as reliable independent third-party secondary sources. Is this argument sane? Where is it best articulated on the WP? Thank you for letting me annoy you with this. tqbf 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I write some of those articles, so I know what you mean. Even though things move at the speed of electrongs, before Search Engine (Whatever) publishes my article they know who I am and have a belief that I'm reliable. They at least read the thing, and if they post something totally whacked on their site, the masses will yell and there will be all sorts of comments attached saying "this flaming piece of crap sucks." In the rough and tumble, go-go tech world, fact checking happens differently than at the Princeton Law Review. That's OK. The point is, there's a distinctions between ClickZ Network and somebody's home grown blog. As an expert, I can even publish something on my own blog, and that's probably OK, if I'm am well known, as long as it's not too contentious. Wikipedia has lots of really low grade articles. I suggest you work on a few of the really bad ones first. Then I suggest you pick a reasonably well developed article and try to get it to good status. Then try to get on up to featured status. My featured tech article is search engine optimization. An example good article is Atlantic City, New Jersey.- Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

COI-cum-deletion request

Hey. So, Dr. Levan Urushadze is asking for the his entry to be deleted. What do you think? Regards, El_C 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's borderline notable at most. We should delete it, per the Brandt precident. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Which would be... what? The second time that precedent is followed? El_C 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there Seth Finkelstein also? Three is a movement. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Argo

I don't know if this will go somewhere where Jehochman can read it. I'm very new to this stuff.

Thanks for your comments about my edits of the Argo (Oceanography) page. I am a life-long scientist and a successful one and do personally believe that I can rise above conflicts of interest and write objectively. I have in the past written research papers critical of previous work of my own. That said, nobody should be expected to take my word for it. I know well enough that there are two responsibilities surrounding COI, one is avoiding COI and the other, often neglected and likely neglected in this case, is avoidance of the appearance of COI. I will be more careful in the future.

I've just been asked by a German scientist if I'd write a Wikipedia note about his software Ocean DataView. I guess that is appropriate use of skill, I know this rather obscure software that is of great importance to oceanographers and nobody else on the planet. He wrote it and maintains it and feels ill equipped to write the article, so I'll try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you write about something obscure, make sure you cite to a reliable sources and avoid synthesizing your own review of the product. Wikipedia is a compilation of knowledge available elsewhere, not a publishing platform. Many experts have great difficulty understanding the distinction. If sources aren't available your article may fail the notability test and be deleted. To learn more about the peculiarities of writing for wiki, I suggest you start by copy editing an article such as Ocean, or Oceanography. Take a look at a featured article link Olm to see what we are trying to do. One of my first articles was Robert H. McCard. If you like military history, you can write a biography about any soldier who won their country's highest honor. Those are automatically notable. Happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Kyiv

Hello,

If you do not read any of the discussions, please do not go complaining to an admin that a discussion has gone on too long, or that an editor with an opposing opinion can't control themselves.

Advanced google search results fluctuate regularly. A recent search, with filters set for English sites only, shows 2,200,000 hits for Kiev and 1,950,000 for Kyiv. This is hardly an overwhelming majority, and therefore other sources need to be considered.

Also, please do not make accusations of sock-puppetry and meat puppetry without backing them up and then leave the discussion - that does not help anybody.

Thanks, Horlo 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion together at the article talk subpage. I responded there. I have read the discussion, and I'll complain to whoever I like. By the way, I generally agree with your position, if not your tactics. So please, be cool. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry that I was rather snippy in my first message. You're right - if everybody at that talk page could be a bunch of little Fonzies, it would be good. Thanks, Horlo 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MyBlackBook Article

The article MyBlackBook is NOT advertisement. It has neutral tone, and is cited by many articles (over several references, and news sources). This has been in an article for quite some time. There are numerous references, and sources cited. Google returns over 20,000 results searching on the subject "myblackbook".

This article has been removed from speedy deletion numerous times by other members and editors of Wiki.

The article meets all Wikipedia requirements, and is an educational encyclopedic entry. The article was put for speedy deletion over a year ago, and was saved after meeting the criteria of wikipedia.

The article meets ALL of wikipedia's criteria for an article. Resorb 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN Discussion

Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. 199.125.109.35 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be hurting your own cause by forum shopping. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a cause, other than to make sure that the discussion is provided a fair hearing. I disagreed with closing the RM and asked for a review. 199.125.109.19 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is there to do here? Ukraine = independent nation, wants names in English. Kiev = English version. en.wikipedia.org = English encyclopedia. Therefore, Kiev. I'd imagine then if someone forced a rename to some other format, it would be vandalism that needed admins, but otherwise, what is the point? Case settled, or am I incorrect? • Lawrence Cohen 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Head over to that page and read the discussion. I'd like to keep it focused there. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the AN because it was attracting negative comments. I noticed that you saw[11] that [talk:Kiev] incorrectly summarized the discussion by saying that there was already consensus (in bold red, and a second time, in bold). I have corrected it to say "no consensus". I attempted to contact the author, User talk:Bishonen but their talk page is protected, so I couldn't. 199.125.109.88 14:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for COI comment clarification

Hello. You made a comment about COI during an ANI discussion. Because your comment seemed undue with respect to WP:COI, I developed my rationales. Could you please clarify your comment? At WP:ANI#Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR (my post is right under yours). Thank you. — Komusou ^talk @ 08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

new article - Storm botnet

Would you mind watchlisting this, and in several days taking a whack at it after I pore through the sourcing (or dig in yourself, if so inclined/interested)? I'm wanting to expand out this article, as there are a very large number of sources on the phenomenon. I'm worried, though, about the structure and flow of the thing, and you and Childzy (leaving this message for them, too) are good copy-editors. I can fill it up, but I'm worried it will take me far longer than you two to potentially form it up into a readable state rather than a mere collection of facts and anecdotes. Lord knows, it took me a while on Szwaja to get my bearings... • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for the Storm article

What do you think of this one? It was one of the bunch that guy was trying to add in with the Castle Cops forum. • Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source, but even then, it's a problem if they try to add unencyclopedic marketing phrases to our Wikipedia article. What set off my radar was a statement to the effect of "Switch to CastleCop because they can withstand the attacks." Sometimes spammers mix good with bad to muddy the waters. I am not sure that guy is a spammer either. He could just be inexperienced. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, OK. I'll pull aside that content they added and see what can be salvaged out of it. As for Castle Cops, it looks like it was all forum stuff, so that is no good for an RS... • Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BDF-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BDF-logo.jpg. I've tagged it for deletion because I don't think the image meets criterion eight on WP:NFCC If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to the relevant criterion for speedy deletion. Picaroon (t) 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, it's a corporate logo being used on an article about the company. That's indisputable fair use. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Changed my signature back to my username. Hope it won't cause more confusion. Suva Чего? 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could provide useful advice. Happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See for yourself and join the fun

Hello Jonathan, One week of not checking my watch list too closely and... see here (entries for 9/13 and 9/21). Oh, you have been indirectly accused of adding original research to the article by the way. :) Enjoy. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium Kyiv article

I have rewritten my post on Kyiv/Kiev naming that points to the Citizendium article on Kyiv -- [12] -- is it now acceptable? Or is any mention of Citizendium forbidden as advertising? Bo Shmorhay 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your initial post revealed that your intention was to promote Citizendium, not improve Wikipedia. Modifying the comment to make it acceptable seems like gaming the system. You're best bet is to walk away from this particular page and start fresh on something else. I see you've been reverting multiple times. Edit warring is disruptive and usually leads to blocks. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- and my apologies for the revert -- I initially thought my posting was being vandalized. Bo Shmorhay 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know

Let me know if you ever stand for an RfA and I'll be sure to put in my opinion there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

let's try this

Here is a test case. Also check history etc. I would be happy if you could comment. Shutterbug 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, just out of curiousity, how you found the secure server? I've never seen it before. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for something like TWINKLE and found Greasemonkey who knew about it. It's automatic, no-brainer. But don't ask me to tell you how the script works... Shutterbug 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, watch out for those automated things. Sometimes hand work is better because it's more thoughtful. Nuances can help. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

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)

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

Matt57

Re [13]: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[14]? Do you intend to block him now? Thanks, Ostap 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You're welcome

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

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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 --FolicAcid 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Hello!

I hope you don't mind me nom'ing [15] 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)

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

Rex Germanus block

You might want to record your latest block of Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done and thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[Talk:Scottish Knights Templar]

I have deleted the above press release because Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, nor is it a newswire service, nor is it an advertising outlet. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Really Jehochman? Perhaps the rules should apply to everyone that uses WIki then and not just a short few? Or perhaps, like the creator of Wiki, my opinion is that this is well and truly broken! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.144 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congrats!!! Carlossuarez46 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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 form 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!" Hyperion357 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

First, copying info from somebody's website, even with permission, is wholly inappropriate because Wikipedia doesn't host marketing brochures. A corporate website and a Wikipedia article will be written very differently. You probably don't know that I wrote significant parts of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. I am very familiar with it. There's a big difference between removing marketing material from an article and deleting an article. I suggest you consider our training program to get a better understanding of how things work here. Cheers - Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing language that is, specifically and clearly, marketing, with the bias that implied. I tried, however, merely to excerpt *information* from their page, on a par with the information on other local law school pages. It's quite possible that, as a result, the *style* is at variance with Wikipedia standard -- I was hoping, having gotten valid information up there, that more experienced Wiki-people would help with sorting out any stylistic infelicities, and weed out any specific examples of overt bias. Although the Chapman website does have, as one of its functions, marketing their institution, it also has *informational* function as well -- it provides valid information about their institution, and it was the valid information which I was trying to provide. Any clearly biased language, if there is any, is an oversight on my part, and I have no problem with having that removed -- however, that is no reason to also dispense with the valid information, as well -- thats throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and doesn't benefit *anyone*!

That being said, I will check out the article you reference

Hyperion357 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK ... as suggested ... I put in for "adoption". *sigh* Now, what do I need to do to get some substantive, *valid* info back on that article?Hyperion357 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have had the bad luck of getting involved with an article that was being manipulated for business reasons. Editing there will be a bit of a challenge. You need to learn how to determine what sources are reliable, and how to use them to cite material you add to the article. I recommend that you take it slow and work step by step to learn what you need to know. Start at Wikipedia:Introduction for a general overview. Then read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Next, have a look at WP:V. When I started, I worked on Robert H. McCard. You may want to choose something historical as your first article, something non-controversial where you can make mistakes and nobody will complain. Does that make sense?- Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

An article you created has been nominated for DYK

Hello Jehochman. The article Gamma ray burst progenitors has been nominated at WP:DYK to appear on the Main Page, in the Did You Know? section, which features new content. However, to be featured the article requires a short (under 200 character) "hook," an interesting fact from the article in the form of a question. The editor who nominated the article wrote one but concerns have been raised that someone more well versed in the topic contribute the hook. You can see the entry, and the concerns at this section of DYK, where you can rewrite the hook. I didn't think anyone had let you know this so I thought I would. IvoShandor 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. I've made the necessary modifications. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, sorry I was so long winded above, wasn't sure you were familiar with DYK. IvoShandor 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're RfA

Well done in being successful! Glad to see it. I hope you enjoy being an admin and happy editing! Lradrama 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst progenitors

On 14 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gamma ray burst progenitors, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidudeman! - Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability template

Thanks for the note, my apologies I had not seen the error in date. As for the reason - I am heavily involved in education in my local area and have been trying to improve the local information on education and schools. I have been informed quite bluntly by several contributors that there is no place in Wikipedia for articles on primary (junior) schools. Indeed I have now moved the information on one school that I started to the article on the village in which it is located. Therefore as I am told that it is Wikipedia policy not to have these articles I thought that I was doing the right thing by flagging up some very un notable one line entries for primary schools in the UK. It would seem that if you are not 'in the know' then Wikipedia is a very unfriendly place in which to try and operate! Paste 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible DE example

If you need more DE examples, you might pick at random any five from Special:Contributions/Callmebc. I'm involved in an edit war with him due to the content of what he's doing, while he says these are an Eastern Front. Of something. (SEWilco 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Feel free to post any examples you like, but be sure to cite diffs to back up any comments you make about another editor. Remember, the board is intended to help people understand what constitutes disruptive editing. If this helps editors modify their behavior for the better, that's the best possible result. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano

Just want to bring to your attention that I commented on this issue you brought up at this RfA: "Hmm, I looked a bit deeper into this and found that actually you are the one who created the noticeboard that Jeske voted against in an a bit ill tempered manner[16]. Well, thx for bringing this alleged case of incivility to our attention, Jehochman, but, with all due respect about your impressive resume so far, don't you think that, as an involved party in this, you should have better abstained from voting on this RfA? I'm sure you acted in good faith, but it's quite difficult to come to an unbiased judgment under such circumstances. I mean, you can't rule out a subconcsious bias, after all. :-/" Gray62 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to express my views based on my interaction with the user. He was rude to me, and he showed poor judgment to do this while at RFA. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sry, but the way you presented it left the impression that you're a third party. Wouldn't it have been better if you would have disclosed that the alleged incivility was allegedly aimed at you? Don't forget, in the case of Matt47 (or what's his number) you also didn't provide the info that you were an involved party in the first place. Honestly, editors might start seeing a pattern here...

Btw, I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a provision on disclosure in WP:COI. Don't you think providing such information would be helpful in many cases? Gray62 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep comments at the RFA page. Thank you. I want everyone to see what you are saying. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so, I'll copy the first part to the RfA page. I didn't do so in the first place because I wanted to hear your opinion on this first. Ok, for the second part, is there a reason why disclosure isn't mentioned in WP:COI? You're the expert on this, do you see any downsides to it? Gray62 16:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gratitude.

thanks for stepping in with Rglong. I really tried my absolute best to be polite; I think my caution about mid conversation blanking was as kind as one can get without being saccharine. But like I said, I had to step away, esp. once he hit Godwin's Law, lol. Thanks for the block, it's about the right amount of time, should give him a cool off. ThuranX 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived the Korean War issue from the COI noticeboard

While doing a manual archive of this item that you had already resolved, I removed the closure box, since that way it fits better with the other bot-archived items in Archive_18. Let me know if you would prefer the box. This way a person (sufficiently motivated) can quickly scan down through an archive to see which items got archived without any action taken (since they have no Resolved banners). The non-acted-upon items could later be resurrected, given infinite free time, which I'm sure we'll all have if we wait long enough.

My sympathies for the situation over at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard. When you first proposed that, I thought 'He'll never get away with this!' You get many points for trying, though. EdJohnston 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if nothing else I will plant the idea that ANI has become an overcrowded emergency room. We need to separate those cases by topic (triage) and then deal with each one carefully. Too often, ANI leads to sloppy administration. We can do better. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Jehochman for a brave edit this template won't let me include here, natch. I'm seriously impressed and humbled by your actions, which I don't know if I would live up to in similar circumstances, to my shame. I tip my hat to you, good sir. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants

Specifically, this. You have my unlimited admiration for putting Wikipedia first. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Help on an article

Hi, I'm new to the wikipedia community and recently wrote an article on Analog signal processing. I saw that you had left a comment on the digital signal processing article and was wondering if you could take a look at my article and leave some comments for me. Any help would be much appreciated.

Drew335 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for telling me about the editor training program. I can't wait to use it!--Gp75motorsports 11:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Small Thank You

Thanks for fixing this! Pressed the wrong section edit button.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)