User talk:Jehochman

; Archives
	June 2006 – Mar 2007; Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007; August 7, 2007 - the mysterious future; ; This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived. ;

Leave a new message.

Bernard J. Taylor

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

Would you like to tweak this?

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thats exactly what she said "Do 5:1 so you can fool people into thinking your not an SPA" ([1]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Gnan garra 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, --El on ka 05:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Kalpha

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Article page eComXpo
See AfD Debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#EComXpo - still open, but discussion is relevant
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]