This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tachyonbursts (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 28 April 2008 (→Miszabot: Hmmm…). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:39, 28 April 2008 by Tachyonbursts (talk | contribs) (→Miszabot: Hmmm…)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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 answer posts on the same page. |
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
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/Homeopathy/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/Homeopathy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just wrote my response for the Arb Committee, but because this is my first time doing this, I just noticed that they have a 1,000 word limit. Due to all of the accusations against me, my response initially was slightly over 3,000 words, though I have edited it down to around 2,000 words, though probably several hundred of these words are links and/or diffs. Does the Arb Comm have any tolerance for submissions of greater than 1,000 words? Even then, I have so much more to say. DanaUllman 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your response should be a summary of the top points, without any need for evidence. A shorter presentation will work much better for you, because people will actually read it. You should move the evidence and extra materials to your section on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence page. Jehochman 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now, I'm confused. I thought that my next response was on the Evidence page. My previous statement was already posted when the proposal for the Arb Comm was made. DanaUllman 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep my advice in mind for next time. You can't really edit your statement after the case opens. Jehochman 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PHG
Excellent point regarding the sockpuppetry. I'm afraid I won't be able to file a report until much later this evening, though... Kafka Liz (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Regrettably, PHG has developed a reputation for tendentiousness, and argumentativeness. Under ordinary circumstances, such IP socking would not be credible, but in this situation, it deserves scrutiny. I am not sure the evidence is strong enough for a block, but at minimum we can shine light on the issue and discourage future socking. Jehochman 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, can you take a look at Talk:9/11 and check out one user's actions. I'm on the verging of asking for a topic ban, since he's done nothing but waste everyone's time, but I need a sober second look. --Haemo (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Warnings
Re: Xiutwel's warning here, see this. Raul654 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. See WP:AE#Xiutwel. Jehochman 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit to the archive
I would like to draw your attention to this edit to the archive of this discussion seems to have gone unnoticed. I would like to raise probation again, since the editor had been warned about being put on probation before. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please check the time on this edit, and now check these .....edits. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please alert the IP. They may not have seen the action on their main talk page. Let's give it a day or two to sink in. For now, just revert and notify them of what's happened. Do this a few times. If they continue to ignore all warnings, then they will be out of here permanently. Jehochman 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me - I just noticed this. As Domer48 says, the comments I made to the SSP did seem to go unnoticed.. until Domer48 noticed them. My actual comments were not noticed though - only the fact that I had made them. I am apparently currently blocked for Sock Puppetry, despite there not having been sufficient dialogue - a decision which was made, by you, only yesterday - after I had attempted to address some of the accusations that have been made.
- How can you have reached any kind of conclusion without having attempted to listen to the person being accused? I was not given any warning of this impending ban, and my attempt at addressing the situation and sorting it out was ignored. I'm left wondering what I was blocked for.. was it for editing an archived discussion, or was it for the allegation of Sock Puppetry?
- As I said on the Setanta747 talk page, I don't understand why you haven't assumed good faith on this matter, and tried to help me, as I've obviously tried to address matters (albeit in a perhaps unconventional way). Your suggestions as to how to proceed would have been most welcome, especially given that you seem to know the system (as do some of the accusers).
- Allegations of sock puppetry, gaming are wholly incorrect, while that may appear on the surface to be the case, and I am not being afforded an opportunity to address this. As you personally closed the case yesterday (ignoring the comments I had made), I'd like to request that you re-open the case for me.
- Thanks in advance. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Re:Important article needs help
I have made a start over my lunch break. So far the "Background" section as been rewritten, and appropriately referenced. The references took some time to locate, which is why the article was {{inuse}} for an hour. The rest of the article is going to be much trickier. It needs to be rebalanced towards to majority viewpoint (too much conspiracy stuff at present), and there are some structural changes that need to be made to make it more readable (tiny sections followed by huge sections at present) but the hardest thing will be locating sources. But if in doubt, unreferenced material may have to be removed. I expect this will take a few days to clean up, but perhaps some collaborative effort will speed this up somewhat! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
attempt of outing vanished user by IP
attempt , reverted by me. Does this need oversight? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice it's an open Tor proxy, so it's probably the sockmaster going after Dana --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not an oversight issue, in my opinion. Jehochman 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see. Can you advice on the checkuser I asked here about a a possible sock of blocked user giving evidence on the arbitration case? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert F. Kennedy assassination - cleanup complete
My final diff is here . If you look at the talk page, you will see that I have highlighted some issues. I am still unhappy with the "Media coverage" section but I think the major problems with the article are resolved in this edition. I pessimistically await vandalism or OR, or other policy-violating material, but I felt it was sufficient for now to remove the tags at the top. Please review and check that it is good enough compared to the incarnation you were very concerned about. (the history is quite a fun read!) Fritzpoll (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- And the IPs are rolling back.... I have reverted this on the basis of no discussion, but I will not be able to continue to do this without violating principles such as 3RR. Some advice would be helpful! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was only there to cleanup some ELs, but I'll add it to my watchlist again.Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jehochman 14:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fritz, there are three broad types of IP editor I see: 1/ readers and newcomers who fix minor errors, 2/ editors from other Wikipedias adding inter-wiki links, and 3/ bad actors seeking to hide their identity. At this point, we need to gather evidence to see if we are dealing with a puppetmaster. I think you should get additional editors involved to help establish a consensus version of the article. If the puppetmaster keeps fighting, they will eventually provide us with enough evidence to take action against them. To get more attention, an article content request for comment is probably better than running to WP:ANI. My experience with ANI is that it is watched by many administrators, but also by many trolls. Going there in a case like this is probably going to create needless drama. If you want to poke around in the article history, you may be able to form a hypothesis about the puppetmaster's identity. Once you find evidence, we can file a report at WP:SSP or even WP:RFCU. Keep me posted. Jehochman 14:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, they already crossed the line. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/HistoricalAccuracyMatters. Jehochman 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Xp54321
Thanks for the heads up on that one. I thought his editing pattern was a little... unusual. Best, Gwernol 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!!!
Thank you so much!Xp54321 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Poison12346
Poison12346 is not another sockpuppet account.Like I said I'm past that.Xp54321 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent Behavior & Gmail
Excuse me, but I'd like your opinion on my recent edits and behavior. I'd also appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the whole 100MB vs. 500MB thing.It would be much appreciated.(There is a rfc but I'm trying to get as many editors as possible.It has also been agreed if there is no response 100MB will be used as the new update interval.Of course if the speed at which space is added changes the interval will be adjusted per consensus.Oh I'm 13 F.Y.I., not meant as insult:))Xp54321 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of external links on Code 128 and Code 39
Hi Jehochman,
Can you please tell me why you removed the external links on the Code 128 and Code 39 pages? I have reviewed the LinkSpam section of WP:EL and I can not see a reason why any of the sites in the external link could be seen as promoting their website.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingguy (talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, because they were put there to promote one or more businesses, and that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. GS1 is OK, though, because they are a notable organization and the link does not appear to be promotional. Jehochman 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Miszabot
We have some problems with archiving at the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Can you help us?--Filll (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The bot doesn't like me so much either. Perhaps User:Misza can help. Jehochman 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- It just started working again . It looks like it correctly archived all threads it was supposed to archive (all threads with no posts younger than 3 days). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do not know why it stopped working and why it started working again. Weird.--Filll (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Be nice to the bot and it will behave. Jehochman 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now, now, stranger things did happen before, or was it after? Hmmm… Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)