Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 1 March 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GROND

Hey there. I'm the one getting the GROND stuff sorted out. The See Also thing is slightly complicated to explain. I've been working it out with the ME project: see project talk. As you can see, it's slightly more complicated than a simple disambiguation.

I'm working on getting a source on the name of the instrument actually being a reference to Tolkien. I put it in the See Also as a temporary thing, to be fixed when the article is no longer a stub. But for now, as I said on the ME project talk, Greiner's page at MPE does seem to implicitly suggest that it is indeed a reference.

My plan was to try a little bit more for a source. If I fail, I was going to put it in a "other uses"; otherwise, I was going to put it into the body of the article. demonburrito (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you could add a disambiguation link. For the fictional battering ram of Tolkien's Middle Earth, see... Jehochman 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You could contact the researcher and ask them to post an explanation, and then reference it. Sometimes you can provoke a fact to appear. Jehochman 02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! That was my plan, but I haven't figured out how to go about it. I couldn't easily find an example of an article citing a response from the subject. It sounds like you may have experience doing this sort of thing. Any pointers? demonburrito (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the current version. I put a note in the hatnote, and a reference in the note. It was the hairiest mediawiki markup I've done (nested ref bug); but I think this is viable, for now.

Feel free to move our conversation to the article's talkpage, if you wish. Thanks again. demonburrito (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GROND? I'm speechless. What next? GANDALF? Oh, I see: Gandalf Technologies. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

O'RLY?

Muhahaha? — Coren  03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring me a brain! Jehochman 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a word

A chara, could you possibly have a word here to calm things down. I’ve told Dunc, I’ll not be rising to these taunts and accusations. Besides they will just keep going if we encourage them. I'll do what I normally do, and that’s edit articles. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. I did not report it or the double standards since I was once blocked for less before, because hey what’s the point. Even the accusation of tag teaming did not faze me, despite being warned about this and given final warnings because I don't see the point! This here was just to wind up the editor and it worked. Why feed into it, ignore it and they go away. The reason I ask is you handeled these with little fuss or drama so you know some of the background. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I also add that you go back to the very first couple of posts I made, and subsequent passive aggressiveness and bullying I met with (With Big Dunc, not Domer) I lashed out at Big Dunc in my last post, but considering the way he's been behaving it should be no surprise. If you take the piss expect to get a box is what I say. Now, i understand i will get blocked for a period of time, i'm ready for that, but please consider the root of this whole mess, and look with very critical eyes at Domer's 'rendition' of the events. NewIreland2009 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally block people for potty talk. Why don't you just stop the provocations? Claiming the other side engaged in provocation is not an excuse for your behavior. Your talk of a short block underestimates the seriousness of this situation. When somebody is a perpetual source of disruption, it is my style to block them indefinitely. Don't test me; I am good to my word. Jehochman 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that a chara, that should be the end of the matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken that on board. Bear in mind my posts were in opposition to the censorship attempted - if my posts are allowed to remain then that most certainly is the end of the matter. NewIreland2009 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NewIreland2009 I think Jehochman is being very reasonable here so don't push it. Accusations of censorship will not do you any favours, and your personal attack on editors should be removed, likewise the one here. They do not attempt to improve the articles only provide a platform from which to mount attacks. Please read WP:TPG, remove the section and move on from this. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My post was not a personal attack, though I do admit I have made personal attacks since then, after heavy provocation and passive aggression and general mean behaviour. I was merely saying that 60 + references for that article is absurd (Do you reject that?) and that certain users are guarding articles on wikipedia (Which is very clear to all users on wikipedia, thats why there are watchlists - its not necessarily a bad thing, just depends on the motives of the individuals involved.) So no personal attack there, unless you perceived there to be one. Frankly, if attempts hadn't been made to cover up a perfectly legitimate post then nothing would have come from all of this. Just let the matter drop and the leave the post where it is - it clearly doesn't violate wikipedia guidelines and no-one has provided a valid reason for it being removed other than 'I don't like it' or 'per Rule Number 109000893333213'. I'm willing to let it drop but am not willing to remove it. Only yourself and Big Dunc seem to think it should be removed, and frankly, neither of you have the authority to make that decision.

Now please, CAN THIS BE THE LAST POST ON THE MATTER!? NewIreland2009 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. Jehochman 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Thanks, it's Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indents and Apologies

Apologies - of course I was not addressing your good self! Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Donations and RFAR

Maybe $50 for whoever can find the RFAR with the largest number of separate statements and the largest by pure size? The adminbot one was fairly large, but I'm sure some others have been larger. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Closures at WP:AE

Hi Jehochman, with all due respect I disagree with your recent closures at WP:AE and I have request a second pair of eyes to look at them. My comments are here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am uninvolved. You are gaming the system. Please stop. Jehochman 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When I asked for an uninvolved admin, I meant another uninvolved admin. Please step back and allow another admin to review the situation. Handing out blocks for questioning your judgement is inappropriate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacking any admin who criticizes your behavior, and then claiming that they are involved is called gaming the system. Please stop. Keep the conversation in one place. Don't spread this dispute to multiple pages in an effort to create as much disruption as possible. Thanks. Jehochman 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Eek! Jehochman, I just happened on this. I think you made a mistake. Blocking or topic banning someone who questions your judgment, in a manner that clearly indicates the block or ban is proceeding from the questioning rather than from other causes, is admin action while involved. (There is a technical issue that you haven't used privileged tools, but I don't suggest standing on that technicality, I think that Elonka nearly got creamed over that one.) I have no axe to grind here. If Pocopocopocopoco should be blocked or banned -- and it may be fortunate that I don't have an admin bit because I'd be tempted just because of the name -- then, as Risker pointed out with respect to another admin acting while involved, there are hundreds of other administrators to do the job. Please back off. If you think Pocopocopocopoco is being disruptive in questioning your decisions, then do what I'd do: go to AN/I and ask for administrative support. Maybe s/he is disruptive, maybe not, my comment here makes no presumption about that.

The issue you raise, "attacking any admin who criticizes your behavior, and then claiming that they are involved," has been specifically addressed by ArbComm, in the matter of Tango, which resulted in his resignation as an admin under a cloud. It is expected, to a degree, that users will "attack" an admin who criticizes and especially who blocks or otherwise hinders the editor. What is prohibited is action, by the allegedly attacked admin, arising as a consequence of the "attack," not as a result of ignoring warnings, etc. In other words, suppose you are a police officer. You say to a person, "Stop or I'll shoot!" The person says "Go to hell, you fucking idiot!" Shooting the person for saying that would be assault and certainly not a justified use of the weapon. But if the person doesn't stop, then you could shoot. (Assuming that this was, in itself, legitimate.) I'd say, looking at the page cited above, that you have acted while involved, blatantly. You may get away with it, you know how Misplaced Pages works, but I don't recommend counting on that. Just let go, and if you really think something needs to be done, ask at AN/I or follow other process like an ordinary editor. And none of this has any impact at all on your original decisions. They stand, the claim of involvement is not immediately relevant. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2009

Sonal Shah

Could you look into the edits of Eugene Krabs that seems to be restoring content deemed a WP:BLP violation by yourself a while back? Thanks. Saudagar (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. There are now sources that appear at least somewhat reliable, such as NDTV. At the moment this looks more like a content dispute. Jehochman 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello sir, Im not sure if Im at the right place or not, but Im not so advanced with the procedures in Misplaced Pages. I assume you being an admin could perhaps show me the procedure on how to file a complaint against User talk:VartanM. He has recently insulted, scandalized and even threatened me.

Insults

• Nationalistic wet dreams by Baku87
• your maps are simply nationalistic ejaculation
• This place is filled with morons, I tell you

Threatening

• Is poor little Baku87 scared? They're hiding under your bed, I would stop sleeping at nights if I were you

This is very distrubing especially since I gave out my IP for invesigation here.

Scandalizing

• Here he starts a baseless campaign to depict me as a socketpuppet

Dear sir, I find it very uncomfortable to see that User talk:VartanM can just say and do whatever he pleases without any consequences attached to it. I am particular deeply distrubed by his threat and I want him to stop. So could you please tell me where and how to file a complaint regarding this matter. Baku87 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Await results of the checkuser inquiry. Jehochman 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but Im not sure what you mean by that. I dont know were to view the results of the inquiry. But he isnt stopping, this is what he told me yesterday (February 27, 2009)

• He gets those too, haven't you seen the maps he imagined in his wet dreams? Wait till he sees the map I just uploaded. He's definitely going to need diapers after that

And here is what he said today (February 28, 2009)

• In short nationalist wet dreams of Baku87

Im a very patient person, I even told VartanM about his language and he chose to remove my post and just ignore me, see here and again here. Yet he continues on, I dont understand how he can proceed with this, enough is enough wouldnt you agree? Baku87 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Henson

Thank you. This was most certainly warranted and the appropriate action to take. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I support your action, Jehochman, of semiprotecting the article. The private page, ostensibly of the daughter, shouldn't be linked unless it has notable mention, in which case that mention would be what would be linked. The question of court documents is a little tougher. Are court documents RS? They are as to allegations; court documents show that an allegation was made by a specific named person. That's not OR. But it would be correct that facts are not established by filings, only by court decisions (arguably). But the entire topic is hot, and sensitive. How notable is it? If there is RS, that would determine it, but even then it would have to be handled very carefully.

Disclosure: I knew Keith Henson and his wife, Carolyn Meinel, quite well, I worked closely with both of them, in the late 1970s, and I have some vague memory of the daughters. I'll say this much about the daughter's testimony: it rings true, with respect to details from that time, such as the tunnels under the house, i.e., this is from someone who knew the context well; and I believe that the daughter is well-known, the document is unlikely to be a forgery. As to the alleged molestation, and mention of it in the article, that is quite another thing. I'd say we stick close to policy on BLP and RS. --Abd (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:White_Adept and Arb.com rulings

Hi Jehochman,

I had spent several hours writing this case to present the facts appropriately. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings

I am disppointed that the case was closed with in a day even before I could reply to your questions and present the facts.

I have added a discussion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings

Right now there are 2 major issues.

1) One is the User:White_Adept related problems which I have discussed in detail in the above discussion.

2) Second problem is more serious:

• The original template of the article which has been maintained for all these years has been replaced by User:White_Adept's new POV template.
• He has replaced almost every line of this original template with his 300+ edits in 15 days.
• The original template of the article maintained till Jan 7th 2009 is lost for ever.

Can something be done about this?

Can the original template of the article be restored so that we don't lose years of efforts / work done on the article?

Please let us know. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All prior versions of the article are available in the history. You can have a discussion at the article talk page, and if there is agreement, you can revert the article to any prior version that is better than the current version. No work has been lost. If you cannot get agreement on the talk page, then you can conduct a content requests for comment to get input from uninvolved editors. Follow these procedures and you will get the results you seek. Best regards, Jehochman 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate all your help. I have another question. I have seen that some users add banned material or add back poor negative material which were removed from the article coming from different ip addresses. These POV edit warriors keep edit warring from different IP's. How to handle such situations. There is no Admin involved related to this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you make a list of some of these IPs? I will check them. It could be the same person, or a group of related people, trying to avoid scrutiny. This is not allowed, and we have tools to deter this sort of behavior. Jehochman 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is one such example. When I removed the banned Priddy references from the article it was added right back into the article from this ip address: 218.248.69.22. I removed it again and later User:White_Adept added it back to the article.

I looked at the history from January 2009 there has been so many changes to the article so I am not able to exactly pin point the problematic ip's. I am going to keep a watch and when ever I see such suspicious behaviour I will report it to you. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with Callback_verification

On Talk:Callback_verification, your name was suggested as someone who could either review the article as an editor, or suggest someone who might be able to help out. If you have time to do either, I would appreciate it. Thanks Wrs1864 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice on Report format

Jehochman in response to your comments here I’ve reformatted my report and want to know dose it conform to the correct standards for future reference? I’ve no intension of re-filing it, as it has already been acted upon and the editor cautioned about 1RR as I requested.

Just one other point I’d like to draw your attention too, in your comments you seem to have the situation reversed, “The initial report fails, and looks to me like the continuance of a content dispute on the WP:AE page.” The report on AE actually came first, and because of the assumption of bad faith and accusations I report it on ANI so no gaming there either. Straight forward report turned into a drama. Thanks,

I advised Colin4C on their talk page here at 10:47, 28 February 2009 that the Great Famine (Ireland) was subject to WP:1RR outlined on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles in the section titled Final remedies for AE case which state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.”

The two reverts are:

• 1st Revert at 07:57, 28 February 2009.
• 2nd Revert at 22:16, 28 February 2009.

The edits also go against an agreed consensus on the talk page which resulted in this chronological article and is linked to the Great Famine (Ireland) article, the result from a discussion here started by Hohenloh, with advice offered here by Angusmclellan. It was acted upon here by Rockpocket, who answered questions on it here during a discussion on it here with Colin4C.

The above looks much better and is more likely to get the sort of respond you'd want. Try to follow that in the future. Best regards, Jehochman 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)