User talk:Jan eissfeldt

Jan eissfeldt is always very busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have a really urgent matter, it may be best to use email.

useful:

Photo

Hi Jan, just letting you know your photo is up at File:Jan Eissfeldt at Improving the Ambassador Program meeting.jpg. Dcoetzee 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay

I really enjoyed reading your essay The global mission, the image filter and the "German question" at the Signpost. It covers a controversial topic, and it expresses your opinion, yet it does justice to all sides of the debate. And it really helps English Wikipedians (like me) to understand the issue for the German Wikipedia perspective. Thanks for writing this. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx Quadell but i have my doubts that there is something like a coherent "german perspective" or an "american/canadian/chinese/xy perspective". we can rely on some land marks in our own assessment process(es) (as i outlined "german land marks") but in the end there is no stable ground (to judge values in an environment like "ours" on such a practical level). more problematic seems to me that we as a community haven't thought it through properly yet and people are still attempting to make cheap points like: "you are trying to solve a social problem by technical means" while it is obvious that we all are doing just that everyday by driving a car or using the internet. the whole story of wiki as a principle is nothing else than fixing social stuff by software (as a form of techne as well as episteme).

however, that there would be a lot of drama ahead was clear at the very day we rushed to adopt the "movement rhetoric" and there will be more on a far wider range of topics. marid has left the teapot, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of my account/IP in German Wikipedia

I'd like to inquire about/discuss the reason because of which you have blocked my account/IP on German Wikipedia, which is, I guess, related to my recent contribution to the discussion page of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltjudentum (in which I critizised this article's implications that 1. the term 'Weltjudentum' (world(wide) jewdom) would necesarily imply anti-semitism (i.e., correctly said, anti-judaism (semites != jews)), and 2. that the assumption of conspiracies of jewish people would necessarily imply such, in the sense of advocating general hostility towards jewish people). If you hold it that this contribution, in any way, implies/is based on antisemitism/-judaism, you are wrong, and such an assumption could reasonably be considered far-fetched. I did in no way say, nor imply, that I support general hostility towards jews, nor any unreasonable general assumptions about jews on which such can be based, nor any jew-related conspiracy theories (and even if I did, deleting of an entry on a discussion page because of disagreement with the opinion implied amounts to censorship, let alone entirely blocking an account/IP). I kindly ask you to state your reasons, and of course to un-block my account/IP. Sincerely

--Sirjefferson (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, i approved a motion to block your account, requested here, because i acknowledge the convention-related point put forward by the user. however, i guess you are neither interested in deliberative interpretation of the convention nor in semantic arguments regarding the differences between what you published and what you claim it was intended to mean.

i hereby state that i'm informed and thereby grant the option of a second administrative opinion regarding my decision within the framework of an orderly unblock-request on the local wiki, called sperrprüfung. the IP should be available by now.

please note that this isn't your only option to challenge the decision. it is, in principle, also possible to do so in another framework, provided by the local schiedsgericht, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, agreement to second opinion, and the information - I will consider the possibilities you mentioned; besides, I am very well interested in reasonable discussion about the convention/this case, as for differences in the meaning between what I posted and how I summarized it here, I am aware of no such differences or obvious possibilites of misunderstanding; please state such as perceived by you. Also, the allegation made on the vandalism report page, that I had created the account mainly/solely for the purpose of making that post, is wrong - it merely happened to be the first thing I wanted to do on Wikipedia with this account; I have been scarcely contributing to English/German Wikipedia in the past (mainly fixing small grammar/spelling errors) without using an account, and now decided to make one, in course of wanting become more active a contributor in general, and certainly do not wish to be disruptive. The point made by me on the discussion page seems reasonable to me, and does not need any verification ('Beleg') since the word itself is verification enough ('world jewdom' implies just as less negative things about jews as e.g. 'world christendom' does about christians - in my opinion, like I stated in the second version of my discussion entry, common usage should of course be considered and mentioned, but the technical meaning of the word retained as its prime definition). Also, aren't discussion pages meant for putting opinions/suggestions, no matter whether other users agree/disagree with them? It seems not reasonable to me that users would delete a (formally correct) entry from a discussion page at all, and/or consider it 'vandalism', let alone punish a user for one.

And yes, I do understand that this page is not the best/proper place for further complaints about the blocking issue, I merely state this here as a response to you in the discussion regarding this matter, and do respect if you find your time too valuable to care about this any further; thanks for your attention if you even read this far (I would of course appreciate further reply very much).

Sincerely,

--Sirjefferson (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for one, i tend to interpret de:Spezial:Beiträge/894fjewf90 not in favor of your "new user"-claim but inside well-known patterns of our more permanent "guests", which is in consistence with the definition

however, granting you the benefit of the doubt and excluding the administrative aspect for once you would have to proof some obvious points:

1) as i'm sure you are well aware, your private opinion doesn't matter on a discussion page and the related convention says so as well. you would have to proof that your claim is not your own but a reputable one in accordance with de:WP:Belege and please take into account that the convention states in it's basic principles that you have to proof everything your discussion partner challanges (which seems to be everything you posted there)

2) you would have to proof that your position doesn't rely on the anti-semitic patterns it implies. that seems a challenge in itself and it gets worse by your quite paradoxical looking position of claiming a doctrine of usage on the one hand and essentialism on the other at the same time.

3) you would have to proof that your doctrine of usage is as common as you claim it is and it's quite hard to see which reputable literature regarding what sociolect you could use to validate that.

4) you would have to proof that your translation is correct on a formal level as well as a semantically. right now the term you put forward looks rather clumsy (no offense) and indicates that you are not familiar with the scientific literature regarding the topic you are intending to write about

5) you would have to proof the existence of an established reputable position, which supports your drafted comparative theory, obviously in accordance to the other points and named conventions.

but as i said, giving you the benefit of the doubt you are invited to try, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Jan eissfeldt,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

re the Signpost

Sorry! I didn't see your message until now. Hope I haven't mucked anything up and please feel free to change anything I have added. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my newest additions to March 26, 2012 Signpost, this is my thinking: I had no idea that meta advertised jobs and I wonder how many wp editors know that, even though it is "old news" to others. Regarding the image issue, the way it is written is a little difficult to understand, even though I have known about it for a while. Some of the readers of the Signpost may not be following it intensely and may need a little background.

I also made some comments on my talk page. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to AdminConvention

Moin Jan eissfeldt please take a look at this edit. Cheers Sargoth (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop was cancelled, thanks for your attention. Sargoth (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tech Report

Jan, this is why we reporters rue the loss of ITN. I'll add some links to Tech, but doing much more is not really on the cards. Note that we did cover the switch in slightly more detail in a previous issue, I'm sure of it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]}

Signpost

Just a comment: you may wish to see this. Sorry for the confusion! :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Account activation codes have been emailed.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Jan eissfeldt, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re email

Hi,

You said you sent me an email, but I haven't received it. Thought you should know. I checked my inbox thoroughly. There is not one from you.

Thanks anyway, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your last post on my talk page. I did find your email from back in April. But (to repeat myself), I'm not clear what you are asking. It's quite a downer to trace the educational program stuff. But perhaps if there were two of us (so I wasn't feeling alone with the issues and could get feedback and discuss), I'd be willing to delve into it all again. (Is that what you are asking?) Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - just an interesting post I tripped over looking through my emails (for a while it was emailing every time someone posted on my page). Shows that the whole thing is way more complex and political than I envisioned. e.g. the post by User:Rob Schnautz (WMF): "The Foundation is constantly asking questions about the English-speaking community's perception and concerns, just as you ask questions about the program." In fact, much of that page is interesting, including SandyGeorgia's comments. She's down in the trenches, dealing with these articles the education program produces. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping

Hi Jan. Obviously I notice that the News and notes section of the Signpost features newly appointed admins. I also suggest you mention the desysopping of inactive admins (I have just done the latest batch), as it would be nice to see that raised to people's attention. We have appointed 10 sysops this year, but desysopped 47 (although at least one requested his flag back; then again, another admin was desysopped due to vandalising with sockpuppets). Thanks! WilliamH (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish or Japanese WikiProjects

Thanks for responding to my request in the Signpost newsroom. I'd like to find an active WikiProject at either the Spanish or Japanese Wikipedia that we could feature in the Signpost. I like having these fresh perspectives both as a way to highlight strong projects at other Wikipedias and to see if these other language Wikipedias have any innovations that we can share or replicate with the English projects. Since we've already looked at two European projects, I'd like to feature a project that incorporates some Latin American or Asian culture, hence the hope that we may find a Spanish or Japanese project. My Spanish is limited and I know nothing of Japanese, so I'd need someone who can pick out an active project and help translate questions and answers. With the Czech and French interviews we ran earlier this year, we posted questions in both English and the native language on an English Wikipedia sandbox and invited members of the project to answer the questions. This also involved translating an invitation message that was posted to the WikiProject's talk page and on the talk pages of several active members of the project. Typically, we'd like to get responses from about two and five interviewees, but more is fine too. Would you be willing to help or could you recommend someone who would be interested? Thanks! -Mabeenot (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Signpost news and notes

After a discussion on the FPC talk page and posting a notice on VP which received no comments, I have marked Picture Peer Review as historical. Pine^✉ 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society

Hello, Jan eissfeldt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Andrew Gray (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Special report

Question for you. ;-) --Nemo 11:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fine work!

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		For excellent work on "News and notes" each week, among other contributions, I award Jan eissfeldt The Signpost Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost: Hurricane Sandy

This article was featured in Popular Science: See "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thank you so much for being so nice and humble :-) AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Jan! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost barnstar

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		To each of the generous contributors at the Signpost who wrote articles during what is a busy holiday time in much of the English-speaking world, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and happy holidays. Pine^✉ 06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1, thanks for keeping it vitalized. – SJ +

Meta-editorials

As per comment on the recent SP op-ed: what do you think of me writing a counterpoint, followed (if there is interest) by a biweekly series on specific topics? If too meta- for the SP, the latter could be posted elsewhere. But the en:wp audience is one of the key groups that would benefit from better awareness / communication.

Regards, – SJ + 00:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial

Traurige Situation. Schöner Text. -- southgeist (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]