User talk:Jehochman/Archive 22

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me?

While investigating some issues with Konrad Henlein I have looked at the page history and came across this. So what is the story? Nothing that is in the visible contrib history gives me any hint. Richiez (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The offensive contribution was deleted. It won't show up in the public contributions. Any administrator can review the matter. I do not think it involved the article you are working on in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Was there a discussion anywhwere? I am not happy to see walls of secrecy at every corner. Richiez (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are unhappy. If the editor themselves want to question the matter, they can raise it through the normal channels. I'm not going to undelete the offensive content to satisfy your curious pleasure. Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/User

Because you are an editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or a closely related one), I call your attention to discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mongo. Best wishes to you and any talk page lurkers. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Angled brackets

No way you would have reasonably known, but the angled brackets are due to this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Angled brackets are for HTML code. There is something very unholy about using them that way. Jehochman ^Talk 08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a technical explanation for that. Someone might post it. It went right over my head. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki automatically encodes angle brackets when they are in a heading. Jehochman ^Talk 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you either do the brackets all one way or the other? Using them inconsistenly is sort of an invitation for somebody to come along and make them all be one way or the other, and there's at least a 50/50 chance the interloper will choose the wrong version. Jehochman ^Talk 08:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The two older requests are due to be archived really soon, which is why I didn't bother asking a clerk to change them.

The reason for using those is that MediaWiki automatically removes everything between < and > in the heading when it generates the automatic edit summary (it treats all of them as if they were HTML tags); this keeps the tally out of the automatic edit summary and makes it possible to have them all direct to the correct section through a single {{anchor}}. T. Canens (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the technical stuff I mentioned. Incidentally (to Jehochman), Universalist Church of West Hartford doesn't have a photo. If it acquired one somehow, that would be a positive result from this arbitration request! Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jehochman. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by LadyofShalott.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 05:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Music lessons

I don't think your child's music lessons will be affected one way or the other by the "See also" link to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches that was added to that particular article (but not to any other articles about individual churches, AFAIK) and whose presence has been stubbornly defended.

However, much of the article content appears to have been copied from a church website. I've cleaned some of it up. It might be a worthwhile project to undertake some day when you are sitting in a church hallway, waiting for lessons to end. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately we can sit in the room with the lessons, because the hallway benches are uncomfortable. The main problem is to avoid falling asleep because guitar music is very relaxing. I will try to get a good picture of the church next time I go. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see the results of your efforts! It helps when someone with independent knowledge of the subject can assemble its story in coherent fashion. And I'm glad you have comfortable seating during the lessons.

About that edit war: As you can see from the history, in January 2012, I had edited the lead section of the article and added the "orphan" and "primary sources" templates. It was on my watchlist when Doncram stopped by in December and made an edit with the summary "rm tag, linked from (and now to), List of Universalist churches". (Doncram has been convinced that I monitor his edit history, but in fact I was monitoring only my own watchlist.) I remembered the article, and I looked at it to see what progress had been made. I was pleased to see that it was de-orphaned, but I thought the added link to a list of other churches of the same denomination looked odd. Links to lists of other properties in the same city or county are often included in articles about National Register properties, which I think is sensible because the list of other properties in the vicinity is often an informative adjunct to the article about one of them. However, those types of links are not typically included in individual church articles (I don't think I had ever seen such a link before). Also, since this particular article had more than the average number of links to other pages about Universalism and related topics, so it wasn't likely that a reader would learn much of anything from a list of other churches in other cities and countries. Accordingly, I thought the link was excessive, so I removed it with the explanation that it "does not add information value to this particular article". When Doncram reverted me, 25 minutes later, his edit summary did not indicate why he thought it was a worthwhile link, but rather declared his intention to turn the link into a issue: "Follow BRD...discuss at Talk?" I thought "WTF?" and opened a talk page discussion, starting with the query "How many paragraphs and hours do you think should be devoted to discussion of whether or not a "See also" link to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches adds information value to this article?" Doncram's 406-word reply castigated me (for a variety of alleged offenses) and indicated that the link was added to inspire article readers to look at other church articles as sources of ideas for improving this one. Six days later, I did re-remove the link as part of a series of cleanup edits, but Doncram (he who claims that I am following his edits with an eagle eye) restored the link one minute after my last edit, and I let the link remain.

Unfortunately, this is only one of many minor items that have been escalated far beyond reason by a user who has a sense of ownership on every article he touches and is committed to never giving an inch. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, if that editor is having problems, are you leaving him a loaded question like "How many paragraphs and hours do you think should be devoted to discussion of whether or not a "See also" link to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches adds information value to this article?" The link is so trivial that you should have just walked away. I think you are responsible for some of the disruption because you are goading him. Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it takes two to tango, but wouldn't you say that his invocation of WP:BRD was goading me? (BTW, he often reverts other editors and invokes BRD in the edit summary.) He's been doing this kind of thing to me for more than 4 years, then proclaims to the world (often on my talk page; I'm not allowed to use his) that I am an evil and hateful person who has initiated and continued a long-term campaign against him, while he consistently "turns the other cheek". I freely acknowledge that we "involved" parties (Sarek, Nyttend, Sitush, me) are capable of being somewhat prickly, but I fear that's largely because several users with more delicate personalities have simply given up and quit. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he does. You are only responsible for your own actions. Make your own actions good, and then if the other guy is an asshat, that will be dealt with. Don't get in the way by responding to incivility with more incivility. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 18, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @808  ·  18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Saw your questions, and will answer tomorrow; I'm trying to finish up something arbcommy tonight. Risker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

All right, thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Visibility and corruption re election guides

Jonathan, how do you mean "a few guide writers… get their guides promoted on the arbitration election pages"? And the election pages "elevate the opinions of a select few to higher visibility"? I thought all the individual guides were simply listed on those pages? At least in more recent times. Maybe I don't remember it right. Got a link or two for guidance, please? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

Here's an example of how it used to be. After much dickering, I was able to make this edit so that the template now looks like this: Template:ACE2012. Ideally the guides would disappear completely from the template. Campaigning should not be allowed so close to the voting booth, nor should the guides be given such an appearance of officialness. The template appears on all official election pages. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You have mail. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

Understatement of the year. Several hundred per day. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

This is unrelated to the Eckelberry AFD so I'd like your input. Sometime last week I found myself mired in a talk page dispute between two other individuals, I found that one had a plaintext signature (no links to his user or user talk pages). When I realized this was the case, I requested he add a link. He later removed the thread and continued participating in the discussion, still with no link. I've made another request that he modify his signature again. What would the next course of action be should this second request be ignored?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just let it slide. He's being non-collegial, but I don't think it is worth pushing the issue while you are already in some sort of disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No wayyyyyyy. Oh look I wasn't blocked after all :P

What happened to the good lo' Fish Day spirit? Was that a joke? :P ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers~! Jehochman ^Talk 11:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Same to you! ;-) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer Barnstar
		Cool! I never got much beyond the old DOS menu boxes, and always admired the folks who could actually create artistic work like that. — Ched :  ?  15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Doh! I don't deserve this. It's copied from The Oatmeal. View source of http://theoatmeal.com. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Meh .. I've wanted to do or say something for a long time. When I first became an admin. I got overly sensitive a few times about a few things you posted. I was defensive of Pedro (he was my RfA nom), and I likely said (or at least thought) a few things I regret. You're a good man, and a good admin. I had a chance to drop something, so I did. Besides, I always enjoyed that ASCII stuff. Just be careful .. the very fact that you know these kinds of things might tend to make you look a bit old these days. :) — Ched :  ?  19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am old! And some day I hope you will be too. When I started we had dial up modems where you put the phone handset in a cradle. Our computers didn't have screens; there was a rotating ball head that typed the output on a roll of paper. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I got my AARP card a few years back, and yep - I remember the old days. I remember helping my uncle sort punch-cards, and I myself got into the field back in the early-mid 80's. IIRC DOS 3.21 was my first OS. I'm semi-retired now, but do go help a few of my long time clients when the need arises. I probably don't keep up with the current technology as much as I should, but I still enjoy it. (well .. enjoy and Windows 8 might not go into the same sentence). I actually still have a couple clients on dial-up .. uggghh - I do dread those calls. — Ched :  ?  20:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Reported haunting of Alcatraz

Hello Jehochman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reported haunting of Alcatraz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The truth cannot be denied even on Wikipedia

It was stupid of you to remove the edit because the truth cannot be denied even on Wikipedia. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:THE TRUTH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you like to talk Wikipedian, then please see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Really 76? You're going to defend that kind of trolling? Hey, I'd like to see Cla68 back as much as anyone - but those kinds of posts certainly aren't going to help him. — Ched :  ?  16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched, trolling is posting off-topic messages. I do not think the post I linked to was off-topic. Really, how long should it take to make a decision on a relatively easy matter, and why not to have the discussions, regarding this case, public? Why not to unblock Cla68's talk page? One more point: you're saying: "but those kinds of posts certainly aren't going to help him." , but could you please explain to me why those kind of posts should have any influence on the ArbCom at all? I mean this post was made by someone on a public talk. What does it have to do with Cla68, or you agree with this " However, there will now be a short delay while I block you indefinitely for having an impermissibly confusing impersonator username.", the comment I also find silly. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

First the "trolling" aspect - all you have to do is look at the username. Newyorkbrad is one of the most respected people here; and you're going to create a name like Ancientyorkbrad? (not you personally). I blocked that name myself on sight. Now, as far as the unblock. Arbcom has made it abundantly clear that the current block is an Arbcom sanctioned WP:OS block. Anyone messes with that, and they loose their admin. tools. Now I haven't talked to Cla68 in several weeks, but I know he is firm in his beliefs and his resolve. He and Arbcom have exchanged several emails, I'm not privy to that information - but I suspect there are issues revolving around what is acceptable to our WP:OUTING policy when the information exists on the Internet and can be linked to. The "Qwickwire" account is an impersonation of a registered user "Gwickwire", which is why that one was blocked. Yes, I do wish Arbcom would communicate more with the community, but I also respect that much of this revolves around another editor whose real life identity is involved. Does that help? Anyway - this isn't my page, and I should likely just let Jehochman handle it as he sees fit. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched, I was not talking about the user names, used in those posts, I was talking about the content of posts themselves. I agree the user names were tasteless, and it is rather sad that it takes somebody with such user name to say that the ArbCom is a disgrace. I wish a registered Wikipedian said it instead. Still I cannot understand why those posts should have any influence whatsoever on the decision, regarding Cla68. Now, let's be reasonable. Cla68 is a smart person, and I am sure he understands that, if he wants to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, he should never again link to any info, concerning any Wikipedian, which is available somewhere on the NET. So, why Arbcom and Cla68 should agree on what constitutes outing in order for Cla68 to be unblocked? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't mind me.  :-) I find this conversation amusing. Wikipedia isn't for the truth. It's for finding a succint summary of all human knowledge, warts and all. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Jehochman! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

18 USC 2257 compliance

Jehochman, FYI, last year I asked Philippe Beaudette to look into issues around 2257 compliance, and one of the Foundation's legal interns drew up this document in Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement

Note that according to the legislation, every page using such media should itself include an 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, as far as I recall. So it's not just a matter for Commons, but also for any other projects that use media of this type. I'm glad you brought it up. Cheers, Andreas JN466 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (PS: I accidentally posted this on your Meta talk page when I meant to post it here.)

At minimum Wikipedia should build a warning template to add to pages about sexually explicit topics to alert editors to the risks they are facing if they use explicit images and don't keep the required records. (The template could link to the page you've identified.) That way individuals can make appropriate decisions for themselves. Secondarily, there should be a procedure to speedily delete any sexually explicit image that appears to be or could be an under age individual.[1] After deletion the uploader would have to generate documentary proof through OTRS to establish that the photo subject was of legal age. I think these two measures would be common sense and uncontroversial. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and not sure this is a war I want to get into, but what's the next step? How do we implement law yet minimize censorship?--MONGO 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Censorship is the problem when one person says "obscene" and another person says "art" or "educational". That's a judgement call mess. With age, it's really very simple. If the models appear to be <18, it's presumed illegal and gets deleted. If the models are actually >=18, then the uploader can provide documentary proof to OTRS, and the image is restored. If an uploader doesn't want an image to be deleted, they can provide documentary proof at the outset. For starters, go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria. Jehochman ^Talk 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Censorship really only ought to be a problem about articles, not images. If a provocative image isn't illustrating an article, it should go; doing so isn't censorship, but simply housekeeping. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"People keep asking why Wikipedia is such a hostile place for female editors; the excessive and irresponsible uploading of porn is part of it. Jehochman Talk 11:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)": This is the precise point I made on the Gendergap list the other day (as did others): [2] You may find the discussion of interest; it began in April (thread title: "[Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up"). The Gendergap list archives are here: [3][4] Thanks for raising these issues on Jimbo's talk page (unfortunately, I can't participate there). Best, Andreas JN466 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that wikipedia's defacto workplace analogue is the entire open wep and various bits of the closed web. I'm given to understand that is contains an extensive amount of adult media to the point where what happens on domains under control of the WMF won't make much difference on way or the other.Geni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We tried the 18 U.S.C. § 2257 argument before. The problems you hit are that firstly from time to time some court decides it isn't constitutional and secondly it doesn't apply to anything created before July 3, 1995. And yes people did manage to track down material from before that date. There is also the issue of the large number of SuicideGirls pics (SuicideGirls does meet 18 U.S.C. § 2257 requirements). That said it does have the potential to be a useful tool for dealing with the large number of contemporary pics from questionable sources.Geni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal compliance isn't our thing, and WMF has said this law is not applicable. We just argue on the basis of being decent human beings. If people upload porn, they must plausibly assert that there is a proper Copyright status, the subjects are of age and have consented. That's not too much to ask. Clearly, there are many images on Commons that don't meet that standard, and therefore should not be used on Wikipedia. That's the crux. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Klee Irwin

Sorry Jehochman, I have to disagree with you in this instance. There was plainly no consensus to delete there, and there are many sources, most of which do link him to various shady business practices. I also did consider whether this could be a case for WP:BLP1E, but it appears that they've gotten themselves into trouble more than once over the years. A quick search on Factiva turned up a number of older sources for this person that go into actual detail on them and their activities (ie: not just offhand mentions or quotes, although there are hundreds of those too). Of course, a no-consensus close doesn't mean that you can't aggressively edit the article to rebalance it if you feel it is a "hit job". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Could you post those links please? Jehochman ^Talk 09:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added additional references directly to the article, from the Wall Street Journal, St. Petersburg Times and Salt Lake Tribune. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dignified

Jonathan, I think it's more dignified not to remove comments from your page. Just a suggestion. Well, I guess there are exceptions, too. It may be as well that Writ Keeper took care of this IP gem, but that's a different kind of case, y'know? [/me goes off at a tangent.] If I wasn't so dignified, I might send Darwinbish to post her anonymous coward template on that IP. WP:DENY is better, but db don't see it that way. She likes to use her templates. Try saying something bad, and you may be honoured with this one! Bishonen | talk 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen! How are things in Swedeland? Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that'll get you the Dreaded Insultspout, you're sorely mistaken. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

I'm merely sore. Middle age is not kind. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

? :-( [Spryly:] I can't even remember middle age! Bishonen | talk 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

It's not far from Middle Earth. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes,but...

we are not permitted to say it!

He is the the most slippery bastard on the face of the earth. His whole statement is a careful piece of spin-doctoring. "I neither condone or condemn....however you ought to condemn the government......" etc etc Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I trying that in preview and accidentally hit the save button.[5] Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar TFA heads up

Further to your recent discussion with Silverseren and others here, note Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#History_of_Gibraltar. (In the interest of fairness, I'm dropping Silverseren an identical note.) Andreas JN466 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you locate or generate a historical count of Gibraltar home page appearances? We need to present something to the people who are pretending that there is no problem. Jehochman ^Talk 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See [6] and [7] Andreas JN466 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday we had Hardy Town, Gibraltar on the main page. On June 4, Inundation, Gibraltar. Andreas JN466 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it: Is Wikipedia's front page for sale? Andreas JN466 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Some background info

Moved to User talk:Prioryman

Do you think this evidence supports Prioryman's assertion that his recent and present drive to put Gibraltar content on the main page is just "business as usual" for him as the founder of WikiProject Gibraltar, and entirely unrelated to the Gibraltarpedia effort? And more importantly, what can be done in general to prevent the Wikipedia main page being flooded with material serving a commercial interest? Regards, Andreas JN466 09:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should push for a homepage diversity guideline. There shouldn't be disproportionate representation of any topic. This is just common sense. The home page should reflect the entire breadth of Wikipedia, not the fascinations of our editors, whether innocent (like funguses) or corrupted (like Gibraltar). Could you copy the above post to User talk:Prioryman and ask him to respond? I don't want to host a discussion here, and it's not fair to talk about him where he can't participate. Failing a good answer you could then go to WP:ANI and request that he be topic banned from any participation in DYK, because it's pretty clear that he's been abusing the process. Jehochman ^Talk 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You and I have an honourable mention here. :) Andreas JN466 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

re Chris Field (Los Angeles musician)

Hi, thanks for thinking of me!

It does seem like the article could be a bit more NPOV, however when writing in order to satisfy notability standards, that sometimes happens so it's understandable.

Probably the best thing would be to research WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources, and just go ahead and rewrite the entire article from scratch.

What do you think of that approach? — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've informed the artist's management that it would be best practice for them to be hands off (except for vandalism correction and similar non-controversial edits). Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that this is a biography of a living person, and after my restrictions were handed down from the Arbitration Committee, I've avoided any sort of controversy in that area. I'm afraid of coming anywhere close to those restrictions. Lately I've tried my best to focus on quality improvement projects generally related to the topic of freedom of speech, which have led in multiple cases to successful WP:GA and WP:FA quality improvement drives. I fear the potential for sanctions if I violate those restrictions. I'm scared of editing in areas remotely related to those restrictions, and I've kept editing BLPs to a minimum and generally only in cases that were relevant to GA and FA quality improvement drives on other articles I've been working on improving. Jehochman, you're more experienced with Arbitration Cases than I, and more familiar with the dealings of the Arbitration Committee than I am — perhaps you could look over my Arbitration restrictions, and with respect to this particular article, just double-check for me that it's okay for me to edit this article with the goal of attempting to improve its quality, without fear of potential for further sanctions? — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know this subject has no connection to the forbidden topics. You can cite this edit if anybody questions you, and if they don't agree, just stop and do something else. You were specifically NOT prohibited from editing BLP's. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Phew, thank you for that analysis, that is a bit of a relief. Perhaps you could make a statement to that effect at the article's talk page, at Talk:Chris Field (Los Angeles musician), explaining why I am suddenly showing up for a quality improvement project at that article and why it is allowed within my editing parameters within your judgment of my current restrictions given to me from the Arbitration Committee? — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. It's quite helpful and actually allows me to breathe a little bit easier. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought they were going to stay off the article diff?? — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who is who with any certainty. Reverting vandalism is fine always by anybody, but you should feel free to warn off any editor who appears to be editing improperly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm debating just stubbing the entire article and starting over — or simply first working on a quality improvement project version offline and then posting it saved live. Either way, whoever is doing those edits might not like it when I do that. Oh well, I'll keep you posted! :) — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You could use the revision in process template (whatever it's called) to inform other editors so they aren't surprised by a major update. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

New query: What about the page location for the article? Is Chris Field (Los Angeles musician) okay for it to stay there? Or what about simply Chris Field (US musician)? Or something else simpler somehow? — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you think is appropriate. As far as I know there's nothing that's been disputed about the article in the past, except that its tone is wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay sounds good, I'll keep that in mind, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Complete rewrite of entire article, see DIFF. Hopefully that looks a bit better, — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cirt. It seems like you resolved the prior issues with the article and made it much more information. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Do you think it'd be appropriate now for me to nominate the article as a WP:GAN candidate? — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do whatever you would normally do! Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay great, now listed pending under queue for Media and drama, fingers crossed. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Striking

I was certainly not intending to suggest any wrongdoing on your part - merely noting that an archived discussion had been altered, rather than reverting your change. I don't see what I did as a breach of WP:REDACTED (which in fact says "When modifying a comment, you can add a parenthetical note pointing out the change. You can also add an additional timestamp by typing ~~~~~"). Anyway, as this is a non-issue, we can both leave it there. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions...I should have done that. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Bencherlite^Talk 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said

I know we don't always see eye to eye on things but I thought your comment on this particular policy issue was very well made. As someone with a personal stake in the issue, thank you for putting it so succinctly. Prioryman (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't file editors in "friend" and "foe" category. Any disagreements should be specific to the issue and not affect how we might collaborate on other topics. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you're arguing for cutting off the nose to spite the face". May I please ask you to explain to me where am I getting it wrong? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why bother...go write some articles and stop creating drama.--MONGO 01:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not creating drama, you are. I asked a legitimate question, and I take a lack of response to mean y'all agree that arguing for cutting off the nose to spite the face is definitely not a mark of wisdom. On the other hand user:tarc basically repeated my comment. Why didn't you delete his comment as you did mine by the by with an absolutely idiotic edit summary? Thanks for your advise to write an article. I sure will, but only after succeeding in making Wikipedia a healthier place. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome for the advise...but I doubt that is what you have planned.--MONGO 03:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I promise to you that if I am to succeed in making Wikipedia a healthier place I will write a few articles, but sadly and honestly I do not believe that Wikipedia will ever be a healthier place. Wikipedia is not healthy. It is like one admin says "Never to forgive, never to forget? From Hell's heart I stab at thee? For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee? Is that the kind of wiki we want to be???". 76.126.142.59 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you lend a hand?

Can you come and chime in at the Jehovah's Witness talk page. We have issues with a contributor there. Long story but a lot of inflammatory comments, assumptions of bad faith etc. This is Hell in a Bucket BTW. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't lend that kind of a hand

No, don't do that. It's a talkpage! Bishonen | talk 18:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Every once in a while I do something provocative, just for the hell of it to see what happens, and because I like being scolded. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Allright, you asked for it. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Flatpack self-assembly fish-drying rack £375, all major credit cards accepted

Krunch! Wham! Biff! Urkkk! You're way beyond getting whacked with a wet trout. Darwinbish has walloped you with a rack of dried stockfish. Better take this seriously. She wants you to know she'll send her boys next time.

IP socks

Strong evidence of sockpuppetry and block evasion between 67.53.53.26 and 24.43.201.210 (and possibly more). I'm notifying Mark Arsten as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for going thru some of the unblock request backlog (whether related to my AN post or not). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User spamming

Asmith99 was unblocked with the condition of not link spamming again, but it seems that it's exactly what the user has returned to doing. See this, this, this, etc. It is all commercial links to a webstore. Nymf (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

Your comments at Arbcom

You've said everything the way I wish I could've said it, especially your comments to FeydHuxtable. That is the exact message I wanted to get across. Thanks.--v/r - TP 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, much to reflect on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can write up a motion for ArbCom to adopt. I think the following findings of fact, principles and remedies might be useful:

Findings of fact

1. Regarding transexual issues, a small group of editors are familiar with the topic and understand best practices to maintain the human dignity of transexual subjects of Wikipedia articles. Another small group of editors is actively hostile toward transexuals. A large group is unfamiliar or has minimal experience with the issues.

2. Best practices for writing biographies of transexual subjects including using the subject's chosen name and pronoun (he/his or she/her), and avoiding use of their "dead" name, which can be highly insulting.

Principles

3. It is never acceptable on Wikipedia to make hostile comments toward any racial, sexual, ethnic or national group. Editors who make hostile remarks may be blocked for personal attacks, harassment, or disruption, depending on the circumstances, severity and frequency. In the first instance an appropriate response may be to identify the inappropriate remark and politely ask the editor to strike or refactor.

4. It is also unacceptable to case aspersions at editors acting in good faith. Editors new to the topic of transexuality may harbor misconceptions. These editors should be dealt with kindly, provided with information, and given time to absorb that information. Calling editors "transphobic" just because they lack knowledge of the topic is counter-productive and may serve to create a battleground atmosphere.

5. Wikipedia works by building consensus. If there is a disagreement about whether a policy is applicable, such as WP:BLP, editors need to remain civil and be patient while a discussion determines how policy should be applied. Actions, even correct actions, that circumvent the formation of consensus are disruptive to the project and must be avoided.

Remedies

6. Editors who behaved poorly during the Chelsea Manning page move discussions are cautioned to do better in the future.

7. Discretionary sanctions are authorized. Any editor breaching the above standards on any page related to Chelsea Manning will first be warned and counseled how to do better. If that is not effective, they may be blocked for no more than 24 hours initially, with subsequent blocks increasing to a maximum duration of 30 days.

What do you think about this solution? Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but maybe add something about Wikipedia not being a battleground for political opinions and moral causes (applies to both sides, I think)? Discussion should be able improving the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "best practices". We should follow industry standards for defining such. They get it "right" in the long run. WWII era newspapers used to think it was ok to use the phrase "Japs" and eventually ditched the practice as offensive. Regarding this narrow issue, I'm uncomfortable with a one size fits all approach as MOSIDENTIY takes. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As language evolves, so do terms that are offensive. "Japs" may not have been offensive when it was first coined and developed into an offensive word by it's use in language. So it may have been "Ok" in the early coinage and then ditched it when it became increasingly offensive. It's hard for us to judge what was offensive at the time nearly 70 years later. Best practices should be to accept that language evolves over time and that we need to be adaptive, but also we need to remain in historical context. In the right context, for example a quote, we shouldn't censor the use of "Japs" nor should be paint "Japs" as offensive in early WWII era when it historically wasn't. (I'm no expert at all here, just making a point).--v/r - TP 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think "transgender issues" rather than "transsexual issues". Most people are much better equipped to deal with post-op transgender people. It's the rest of the spectrum that causes the most of the problems; cf. hijra. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See how clueless I am? I don't even know the difference. Good point. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the clueless side too. Guettarda, you mention transgender and transsexual and then you go into pre-op and post-op. I'm guessing one trans- relates to pre-op and one goes to post-op. Is that right? Which is which? That would be a distinction I was unaware of.--v/r - TP 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Include me as well, even though I know someone who has the Y chromosome and dresses and acts like XX. I've always been able to think of her as a "her" because it seems natural. This is another reason we should look to the sources to help define best practices. They go out and query the experts and develop a guideline.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure. And after I posted, I had second thoughts and checked my sources. Which left me more uncertain. We have two different articles, one on transgender, one on transsexual. As I understand it, the latter is a subset of the former. Transsexualism, as I understand it, is about people who are born to one gender but identify with the other. I was under the impression that it specifically applied to people who had undergone a sex change, but I think I was wrong. Transgender though appears to apply to people who don't fit traditional gender roles, so it's a broader category including intersexed people (among others).

My point really was, even people who think they know some (like me) probably know less than we think. And in this case, I think I proved my point better than I could have hoped. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph F. Lorette for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph F. Lorette is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph F. Lorette until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Jehochman.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

steve dodd

You tagged the ITN nom closed but did not close it, so I archived it. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN item

Hi, you closed my ITN nomination after three people opposed it. I've updated it with information that addresses some of their points [8]. Please consider reopening it. —rybec 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I just want to let you know that I reopened the nomination that you had marked close above, just to give it time to run a little bit longer and allow more time for consideration. Generally we let items run for at least 24 hours before closing, unless there is overwhelming consensus not to post (10+ opposes, joke nominations, celebrity news items, like those involving Justin Bieber, that have historically been snowed). Also, if you close nominations, like you also did here, be sure to use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} (or {{hidden archive top}} or {{hab}} if needed) and also give a quick note like "No consensus to post" or other explanation with your signature as well. Best, Spencer^T♦C 06:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Daocheng Yading Airport

Hello! Your submission of Daocheng Yading Airport at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that it's only a 3X expansion. I guess it doesn't qualify. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

I'd like to apologize in advance for the initial hostility in my comment regarding your post. I've rewritten it. Ryan Vesey 02:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice it, so don't worry. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thanks for the idea for me to do a quality improvement project on the article Chris Field (composer).

It was a fun quality improvement project.

The article was recently successfully promoted to WP:GA quality.

Incidentally, this makes 100 WP:GA contributions to Wikipedia for me!

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)

With this edit you removed the {{notability|Events}} maintenance template with the edit summary "bollocks -- all over the news, beyond any doubt notable" can you please explain how the sources demonstrate that this event meets WP:NEVENT. As it stands the article does not make any attempt to show how the event has any Lasting effects, how the event had any significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group, or where the significant or in-depth coverage is all the sources are routine primary news reports. Given that the {{notability|Events}} maintenance template is totally appropriate and I ask you restore it. LGA _talk^edits 08:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you think the event is not notable, please nominate the article for deletion or suggest that it be merged. Please don't damage the article by placing a disputed maintenance tag on it. Do something to solve the perceived problem. Don't just run around Wikipedia splashing maintenance tags on things. That's not a helpful activity. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cover blown

My usual low-profile was blown this week:

• http://searchengineland.com/google-launches-fix-to-stop-mugshot-sites-from-ranking-googles-mugshot-algorithm-173672
• http://www.webpronews.com/googles-mugshot-update-has-been-in-the-works-for-the-majority-of-the-year-2013-10
• http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/10/07/google-cracking-down-on-mugshot-sites/

I've apparently been promoted to "security blogger"[9] from, "bull rider"[10]! Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting bad editors

Hello, I don't want to look like an harasser, so I'll ask it here:

• at which noticeboard can I report cases of users whose edits make Wikipedia look worse, without being drawn into unpleasant experiences like I had today? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If there's an isolated edit that you don't like, use the article talk page to discuss. "A recent edit [diff] seems to be going in the wrong direction. Would it be better if instead we did...(suggest a better version)" Wait for comments. If none within a reasonable time, you can proceed with your suggestion. If anybody questions you later, you can point to the talk page and said that you openned a discussion, but nobody joined, so you proceeded as you thought best. One of the signs of an edit war is when editors revert without even attempting to discuss.

If there is a pattern of questionable edits across multiple articles, you cam go to the editor's talk page and ask them nicely about their edits. Leave diffs. Assume good faith. Ask, don't tell. If that doesn't bring about resolution, you can go to Wikipedia:Noticeboards to find a relevant venue where you can ask uninvolved editors to have a look at the issue.Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did gave my arguments nicely for my edits on Kleuske's page at the Dutch Wiki when she bluntly reverted my edits, but there I only got were single-sentence answers without arguments for her reverts. It didn't appear to take me seriously. Too bad: such behaviour makes it difficult to assume good faith on her behalf. And that is how it all started.

This made me curious to her edits here. Some of them, as I may say, lack some quality, while most of them are clear violations of the WP:RS-rule. And I decided to be WP:BOLD and started to edit them. Please note that I didn't make disruptive edits, as the rules at WP:HOUND say: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles This, in turn made her run to the editors board without discussing at my talk page and ask me nicely about my edits. (as she should have done, doesnt the noticeboard say : "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" And that made me defend myself, as I should do, I think.

Well, having explained my side of the story, and noting that Kleuske reverted most of my attempts to improve her edits: is it all right for me to take some steps to a noticeboard, without risking being banned for hounding? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can post a list of the most egregiously problematic diffs to a noticeboard, but I recommend not following up further. Make people aware, and then let others take over. That helps avoid personalizing the dispute. WP:RSN might be a place to start. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:

This comment is misplaced. IMO the comment is redundant, I would request that if you feel it necessary to restate your position you consider finding a more suitable place in the discussion. Tiderolls 16:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

When updating ITN

As I've seen you omit this step several times, I wanted to point out that when adding a new item to ITN, you're generally supposed to also remove the oldest item. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I often do, but this time it looked like there were fewer than the usual number of items, but I will keep your advice in mind going forward. The last update leaves me a little concerned. The target articles aren't in great shape. Could you look at that issue? Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

I've been watching the talk page reaction to your proposal with great interest, and am pleased to see it seems fairly positive so far. I also have been playing assistant draughtsman on the actual proposal, with the aim of getting the proposal to a polished, finished state more quickly. Is that okay with you, or would you prefer everybody left your prose alone? If not, I wonder what you think about using active verbs in the prose. It always irritates me how stuffy and vague our policies come across, and it's sad that this is the convention. Crisp prose works much better, so "If you are a paid editor, you must not XYZ" rather than "Paid editors should refrain when editing from XYZ." On the other hand, referring to paid editors in the third person could be perceived as more diplomatic; perhaps that is why our policies are written in that way. What do you think? AGK [•] 13:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my prose. Please polish it all that you like. The prose was originally copied from WP:COI, and I made a few preliminary hacks. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As for active voice, I think that's a good idea. We can say things matter-of-factly, in a friendly, informal way. That would probably be the most effective way to communicate. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

You view them as ugly; I view them as extremely useful. It's a choice between tagging or removing the information (after all, WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP both apply) and given the exposure the article is sure to get I felt that my method was most suitable. Unfortuantely I have neither the time nor the expertise to find sources about scientists. GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You can both be right. They are ugly. That's a feature, not a bug. They are useful, as they identify a need for improvement. If someone addresses the need, the article is improved and the ugly tag can be removed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Stoney Jackson

Many thanks for your attempt to help, however I have already responded to that user a few hours ago. GiantSnowman 15:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff? I don't see the article name or the editor's name in your recent contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Voila. In fact my first edit this morning after 3 days away. Please AGF. GiantSnowman 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why say that? I noticed that a user had disputed a prod, and the article was still deleted, and there was no response to the user in locus. I'm not going to search the whole wiki to pick up a fragmented conversation. I was also aware that you had been on vacation so might not be caught up with everything. Just trying to help keep Wikipedia running smoothly! Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to AGF in response to your abrupt request for a diff. You didn't have to "search the whole wiki" - surely my talk page, or the other editor's, would have sufficed. Nonetheless many thanks for your help, again. GiantSnowman 12:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Look, I respond to people where they post, as do most editors. If you choose to reply to people on a different page than where they post, that's your choice. Please understand that some observers won't follow a conversation that happens hither and thither. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anybody was following my conversations. I have always responded on the talk page of the other user, unless they specify otherwise, and it's never been a problem. PS I also don't appreciate your removal of my "dull" post below. GiantSnowman 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See top of the page. I reserve the right to remove posts that don't comply with house rules. "Dull" has at least two different meanings. I'll leave it ambiguous which one I meant. :D Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Regarding this edit: note due to the unfortunate dual meaning of the verb "sanction", the last sentence is ambiguous. The intended meaning can be inferred from context, but as the alternate interpretation is distracting, you may wish to consider rewording the sentence. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:fodder

Any reason why you are bringing up stuff like this? Let it go, lest you get yourself a reputation as a drama-stirrer. If I recall correctly my comment was in response to one of yours in which you said something like "why don't you just ban everybody then?" and it reminded me of being a stroppy teenager. Murican or not, you should watch Kevin the Teenager. GiantSnowman 14:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish I were a stroppy teenager, but unfortunately I'm middle aged. Please don't worry over any frictions between us. A robust debate can sometimes lead to heated comments. I'm sorry if I exceeded the bounds of fairness. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise; I know you are acting with Wikipedia's best interests at heart, just as I hope you know I am doing the same. Apologies if I have come across negatively at all. GiantSnowman 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Z8 GND 5296

Please correct the ITN blurb before too many people notice. See Talk:Z8_GND_5296#Comment. We're making fools of ourselves. --bender235 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please be less opaque. What change would you like made to the blurb, and why? Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced?

Are you sure that you wanted to post this? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is amusing to see that article discussed at WP:AN, and amusing to make a personal comment, though this is a trivial violation of WP:NOT (a chatroom). Go ahead, block me! Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. --Pharos (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page

Hello! I noticed that you've been inserting images at ITN without first uploading them locally and tagging them with the {{uploaded from Commons}} template. Please be advised that this leaves a file subject to vandalism until KrinkleBot detects the transclusion and updates Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en accordingly, which often takes several hours to occur. (I manually protected File:Marmaraytwotunnel.JPG at Commons when I noticed the issue.)
Currently, this notice appears when the ITN template is edited. I've attempted to make it sufficiently eye-catching, but it continues to go unnoticed at times. Any improvements (or improvement suggestions) would be appreciated. Thanks! —David Levy 06:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. This process seems like a lot of extra work. Can we ask Krinklebot to subscribe to the RSS feed of the relevant pages and have it apply the protection much faster? Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be a question for Krinkle. I don't know what detection method the bot currently uses or why the delays seem to have become greater than they typically were in the past.

Please note that the task was set up as a fallback for images that slip through the cracks, not a first-line protection method. The bot has never responded instantaneously or had 100% uptime and shouldn't be relied upon routinely at ITN. (Other sections have more leeway, as their images are queued on KrinkleBot-monitored pages far in advance. Nonetheless, the wisdom of relying on this system has been debated.)

See User talk:Nick#Commons images on the main page for early discussion of a potential MediaWiki-level solution. —David Levy 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Posting to ITN

Hi,

When posting to ITN, please bold the action, such as

• Posted

It will really help with a project I'm working on.

Thanks, Rob --Robert.Labrie (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That will make parsing easier, won't it. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ITNC Billion euro Nazi loot discovery

Good job on that posting. can you please use such reasoning on other postings. I obviously disagree, but it has consensus and that I can see regardless of what I think of it. Please do that for other postings..although I would just reccomentd to add WHY its not convincing. But kudos(Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Glad to be of service. As for the convincing part, "news" is that what's "new", newly published. If there is a murder and the suspect is identified 3 years later (even though he was suspected on the very same day of the crime, but the police remained silent), we could report the identification of the suspect as news if it appeared widely. We have to ask, "when did the news first appear," and, "how widely was it reported?" Those two questions are the keys to ITN. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats fine, Im not asking to define to me. Just to explain more there. Appreciate that you went ahead and did so. Would appreciate more if that was consistent. NIce precedent ;)

btw- agree with you but you would have to either establish consensus for that definition or yuse that as your "vote"(Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

A beer for you!

Thanks for the change! Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ITN important

As a news admin to ITN it appears you are not adding the ITN banner to the talk page when you post something. Its going to be a pain to go back and add it where you don't do, but for future reference that is the requirement for ITN postings. the talk pages have a banner showing they've been posted on ITN.(Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Nope. It's highly desirable that Wikipedia has this kind of record, not a requirement of a posting admin to update ITN talk pages. Fix it yourself if you're that upset by it, or find an alternative arrangement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Iim NOT upset because I REQUEST him. It was asking him as protocol. Not my fault you see such insecurities(Lihaas (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Another TPS agreeing with TRM. Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions#Article talk page and credits shows that the posting admin is not required to do this. Bencherlite^Talk 22:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, it will be a great thing if you stalk me and post the banner on each article talk page, and thank the contributor. That will encourage more submissions, improving the quality of this area of the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ill try, but lets work together. You remember too, ok? Then we can complement each other.

Also can you please post the m23 stuff as its current and before it goes stale. Thanks(Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)).

solutions...

I want to emphasize that I think it was a very good thing for you to propose your solutions to the paid editing problem. It is only by dealing with concrete proposals that the situation can be clarified, and the possibilities explored. I do not think any general solution will succeed, but I certainly hope to be wrong in my pessimism. If we do find one, it will be by efforts such as yours, more than by skepticism such as mine. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to summarize the discussions and provide clarity about the results. This is very helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

opinion

I would appreciate your input here: [11], thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Corpse

I posted some disturbing information on Jimbo's page I found about Corpse-Man of the Obamaclypse's past as another user name- User:Barack Obama DA PREZ. I think more than just a ban on this particular account needs to be done since this isn't the first account this user created and has had this problem with.Camelbinky (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to link the two accounts? Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I base it upon this discussion [[12]]. I have no reason to doubt User:I am One of Many, I have seen nothing on his/her talk page or contributions to suggest bad faith. He/she seems to have experience dealing with sockpuppetry and vandalism.Camelbinky (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on COI + paid editing

It seems to me that the reputation of Wikipedia as an unbiased reference aspect of COI + paid editing is largely missing from the current discussions. Even if enforcement is problematic, the failure to make a strong stand against editing for material reward weakens the mission of Wikipedia. If this basic principle of journalistic integrity can't be a part of the culture of Wikipedia, then it cheapens not just the work of volunteers, it puts the entire project at risk. I'd like to see this prominence given to this as you turn your ideas into a Wikipedia essay. - Neonorange (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The benefits of the policy would be multiple:

1. Ability to enforce when commercial editing is discovered, which happens often enough.
2. Clarity for commercial editors so they know what is allowed, and what isn't.
3. A signal to large corporations and PR firms about the risk of flouting our rules. Enforcement can come from the outside. For instance, a company may notice a competitor fooling with Wikipedia, and bring a claim against them for unfair competition or defamation.
4. Protecting Wikipedia's reputation. If the media discover paid editing, we can say "This activity is not allowed."

I have saved the last version of my proposal as an essay, Wikipedia:Commercial editing. The next steps are to spread the word about that page, and eventually build up enough support to get it promoted to policy. We should avoid labeling it as a proposal prematurely, because proposals are a magnet for opposition. Jehochman ^Talk 12:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As for point #4, it is not enough to say "This activity is not allowed." The community should be able to point to active steps to remove COI + paid editing. In other words, due diligence. Enforcement might consist of an overwatch to flag (behavior + content) that have a high correlation with (COI + paid editing). I'd think automation from the class of bots including ClueBot NG that detect and revert vandalism could be retooled for the purpose (without the automated reversion). It'd be a start. - Neonorange (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Active steps require a consensus that the activity is not allowed. We haven't gotten there yet. A lot more editors are interested in generating advertorials than finding and removing advertorials. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That last sentence is indeed precisely the key point where immediate work is needed: we need more people not just to concentrate on finding COI and doing something about it, but for all editors who clean up or review material to be acutely aware of the likelihood of encountering paid editing and other COI, and not passing over it, but to work on it with a similar intensity to what we give to copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. One of the biggest problems is every company wants a promotional article, because their competitors have one. Anyways, I removed the promotion from Paylocity, but I will avoid the other one to avoid the accusation of meddling with another marketing person's activities. I would probably trim most of the bottom half of that and they wouldn't be happy with me. CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing things for neutrality. Feel free to edit any page as you see fit. We should welcome transparent corporate participation as long as the participants understand that they don't own their page. Corporate watchers can help identify puffery by competitors. They can all help keep each other honest. My informal personal policy is that when I make a request at a noticeboard, I try to clear up one or two other pending requests so that my activities don't add to backlogs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call that "corporate participation". I think I dedicate some of my volunteer editing to promo cleanup because I know I have contributed to the problem, and so I overcompensate as penance. I respectfully disagree on both fronts. It sounds like a great idea to have POV pushers from both sides find middle-ground, but in practice it just leads to terrible arguments, advocacy and contentious editing. Also, I've seen stuff like disclosed PR reps removing well-sourced controversies in a disclosed fashion and I felt even more irritated by the fact that they were doing it under a thin sheen of ethics. Most company articles aren't closely watched and often the company itself is the only participant. Anyways, RE a consistent process, I did start on this a while back, but never did anything with it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think PR reps should stay out of article space completely, but they can be useful on article talk pages if they are properly disclosing their representation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well.... I do edit in article space as a PR rep on a regular basis, usually to correct spacing, grammar, copyedits, citation templates, etc. as well as when editors have given unambiguous approval of the content, but insist that I take credit for it by making the edit. I've also done it when I was being harassed by Canataloupe and when correcting my own mistakes. I use the language that "important editorial decisions are left in the hands of crowd-sourced volunteers." But really the Bright Line is so much easier and simpler to communicate, without any loopholes, it makes a lot more sense. Bright Line should be the policy, but we already have other rules for common sense, so we don't need to get all NOTBUREAU about it. It's not as if getting a volunteer to make promotional edits on your behalf absolves the corporation of accountability for the edits anyway. Anyways, didn't mean to get soapboxy about it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Input

Please add your input here: (I'm getting really tired of this) [13]...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please go use dispute resolution to get more editors involved. You aren't going to win by having a battle. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

ITN

After your update, could you please fix the links so they point to the respective team's season page, i.e. [[2013 Saskatchewan Roughriders season|Saskatchewan Roughriders]]. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please suggest any blurb improvements at WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I did. Could you react, please? --bender235 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

Why? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'm fending off a big problem. All will be explained. Please don't be an impatient editor. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I had already seen that you restored but you never provided a reason. Carry on then. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for this tip. You have no idea how much time I sometimes spend looking for the template change that screwed up an article. NeilN talk to me 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad to be of some use. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bishfriends

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Thank you so much little fishies, and big Santa. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Volgograd posting at ITN

Hey Jehochman, thanks for posting this at ITN, I've marked it as [Posted] for you. Would you consider changing the current photo for one of the station? A couple have been suggested at ITN/C. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Jehochman! In response to your thanks for my edit to Template:In the news, you're welcome.  :-)
As a reminder, please upload a local copy of an image and tag it with the {{uploaded from Commons}} template before transcluding it on the main page. Thanks! —David Levy 18:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't want that getting turned into a bad image. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I did the local upload correctly. Could you look at that for me? I don't have a good terminal at the moment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You created a description page containing the {{uploaded from Commons}} template and protected it. For a file to be protected locally, it must be uploaded locally.

In this instance, the image was cascade-protected at Commons (a fallback measure handled by a bot) before I noticed the issue. (The bot can take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours, so this isn't a suitable fist-line method.) Otherwise, I'd have protected it before posting here.

So no futher acton is needed at this time. (My apologies for neglecting to mention this above.) Thanks again! —David Levy 19:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've Always found the redundant upload to be a kludge. We should think of a better, more convenient method. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully, something will come of the ideas discussed here. —David Levy 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your message at RFAR

Hi, I just read your message to me at RFAR, and decided that it would be more productive to acknowledge it here, rather than there. Thank you for the very thoughtful things that you said to me. I appreciate it. Honestly, I've been quite annoyed at some of the other things you said and did, so this came as a pleasant surprise. I hear what you say, and what the Arbs have been saying, but I still see it as a pretty clear case of what's right and wrong, and all the rest (including worrying whether a ban would go against "DENY") strikes me as a distraction, even though it's abundantly clear that I haven't convinced others here to agree with me. I don't buy the argument that someone who isn't actively editing need not be blocked or banned, but my view is clearly a personal one that is not widely shared. Anyway, it's only a website, and I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I'm pretty much moving on (well, actually, there is one other piece of indirectly related business I'm going to get into, just for the fun of it), and I take some comfort from the fact that 28bytes does not, himself, mind that no ban will take place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame all this came to a head so rapidly, without time for consideration. I am sure a lot of the acrimony would have been avoided otherwise, and I regret it, really. The one thing a ban would do is affect public perception. This guy Dan Murphy is viewed as a legitimate critic. If he were banned for outing, that might undermine his credibility. However, if we don't have solid evidence to ban him, it would look like an injustice and rally support for him. My inclination is to be very conservative in this matter. He should not be banned unless there is clear reason that could be explained to anybody in a 15 second sound bite. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Incni Mrsi

Thanks for your no doubt well-intentioned comments at my talk page. Take a look at Incni Mrsi's edits on the nutation page, now and in the past. I'd ask you to take a look at recent edits to my talk page, but you can't because they've all been revdel'ed (against my wishes). I get called a cunt all over the place, then Incni Mrsi runs whining off to an unrelated admin about "hounding" (presumably because I've had a recent conflict with them for defending Betacommand's return as a sock). Now I'm getting shitty emails from this admin (or a sock pretending to them, I rather suspect) accusing me of complaining about the blameless Incni Mrsi, because of cause all the attacks on me have been conveniently expunged from the record.

I don't give a damn about Incni Mrsi. I don't give a damn about the nutation article. He can take his crackpot theories and newly invented definitions and shove them wherever he pleases. But please don't tell me what a sweet little editor he is; just read that article's history.

And for the sake of argument, please will people stop defending my poor hurt sensibilities by removing childish abuse from my talk: page. WP admins and arbcom do sweet FA when I'm outed by Wikipediocracy and when Wikipediocracy members start phoning my workplace, (and as they're currently being gutless again over Dan Murphy when it comes to 28bytes, I certainly don't expect them to care what happens to me) so it's a bit late to start worrying now about the odd word or two. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you email me the full story I will see what I can do to help you. I'll also check nutation to make sure it's not being damaged by original research. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

“Damn damn damn” nutation article. That’s why an RfC was started, and this was the first Andy’s move, before I actually created nutation (engineering). Everyone has the right to admit a defeat. But it is incredibly silly to resent about exclusion from the decision-making afterwards, and to request an intervention against bold edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you let that RFC run its course. Vote how you like and then step back and just watch. Remember, there is no deadline. If somebody frustrates your attempts to improve Wikipedia, it is often the best course of action to conserve your energy. Simply pick a different topic and work on that instead. There are lots and lots of articles here that need work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

hats and archivetops and the like

Please sign your hats [14] and archive statements and the like; the hat documentation, at least, specifies this explicitly. NE Ent 01:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm male. It's against my beliefs to read the directions. Thank you for the tip. Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

JW talk page sock

Who was that? Thanks. — Scott • talk 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Mbz1. Please let me know if you think I'm in error. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know their past history enough to comment. It would however be helpful if when taking administrative actions of that sort you indicated in one of the log entries which user it was in relation to, as otherwise it just leads people (like me!) to wonder what the story is. Regards, — Scott • talk 17:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem. This user gets very upset and more disruptive when we talk about her. Please read WP:DENY and WP:RBI to understand why we don't publicize the names of some banned users who insist of overstaying their welcome. They feed on the attention. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, you probably don't mean to use WP:FEED for that, since it redirects to Wikipedia:Article feedback. Risker (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA mistake! Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Scott Martin: as an administrator, you know very well not to re-post content of a banned editor. This particular editor is one of the most vehement, strident, persistent, uncooperative editors Wikipedia has ever suffered. Please do familiarize yourself with the facts of the matter. I suggest you ask User:Risker who knows about the history. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

yet another barnstar I suppose ...

		The BLP Barnstar
		For actually noting the requirements of policy at the Outrage film article Collect (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He's back...

Looks like you know who (User:Theserialcomma) may be back at it again. This time only edits to various essays and drafts in my userspace using a single purpose account, including some article drafts he was obsessed with before. See Special:Contributions/Article aides --Tothwolf (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

it continues

On Jimbo's UT page, one editor (who seems to make strange personal comments about me) continues not to see why WP:BLP is a real actual policy. I rather think one might profit from seeing such interactions.  :( Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mass Surveillance initiative

I think you have hit upon the correct approach for Wikipedia's response on Feb 11. A blackout seemed too much, but silence seems not enough.

I want to really strongly encourage you to help prepare for contingency that we decide to do this. I can and will try to brainstorm things based on your idea for the Main Page. But the idea itself is brilliant, and I suspect you could bring something unique to the project. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For this edit. Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On "featured article" status

Hi there Jericoman,

Please excuse my limited experience in this arena, and please ignore this request if the answer this would take too much of your time, but do you have any suggestions about how the Edward Snowden article could be improved? Ultimately, whether it's featured on the "Day We Fight Back" banner or main page, it will continue to receive a good amount of page views (averaging roughly 12K/day), and will likely see an uptick during Wikipedia's 'awareness day'. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 23:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that you would start by reading the article top to bottom and fixing any maintenance tags. Then proofread it thoroughly. Then make sure all the references are formatted correctly. Finally, just submit it to WP:FAC and you'll get a long list of feedback. If the work seems overwhelming, just post a note to the article talk page saying what you intend to do and ask for other volunteers to help improve the article according to your "to do" list, or in any other way they see fit. To avoid criticism of submitting something prematurely to FAC, I recommend spending at least a few days polishing the article to fix any obvious issues. I may chip in as time permits. Jehochman ^Talk 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Danke. I'll do just that. petrarchan47tc 01:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Although, now I'm hearing it's an impossible task to complete by November 11, due to the "longstanding" requirement. petrarchan47tc 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Another_case Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How do we make "your" vision :)

So, over at Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day, we've run into a question. When choosing content to feature on Feb 11, what guidelines should we apply.

• For example, traditional mainpages don't have a shared theme, but our proposed page will.
• "Today's Featured Article" normally shows only one FA. Should we stick that that rule, or should we showcase multiple FAs?
• "Today's Featured Article" normally only shows FAs that has never been used on mainpage before; It is proposed we should pick the BEST article(s) for Feb 11, not just limit ourselves to the tiny minority of articles that have never been featured on Main before. What do you think?
• "On This Day" normally never included dates from the present year; Would it be appropriate to mention The Day We Fight Back in our custom content for Feb 11?

Come on down to Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day and lend your wisdom on the many proposed content items we've accumulated thus far. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should mention that we've been getting QUITE a lot of blowback from the TFA coordinator and other mainpage insiders who are generally opposed to any change to the status quo on Feb 11. I know they're a very non-representative sample of the community, but their opinons still matter; Hence the timing of asking you to check my work. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You need a new lead proposer-- I had been operating under very different assumptions. I'm happy to help, but if you're going to do this through typical main page processes, you need to find someone else to take over. I'm not the person for that job even before this proposal started, and my suggestion that we present this to the community directly generated a LOT of negative feedback from within the MainPage bureaucracy. I'm a brainstorm, not an organizer.

I think you have a great idea, and I trust you to implement it more than I trust me to implement it. But if it's to be implemented, you're going to need to recruit or take the lead yourself. I would be more of a liability than an asset when it comes to proposing content through status quo mainpage channels. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Somebody once said, "Do go into teaching because it is the only job where anything but complete failure is a success." If you try to do 100 things, and fail at 90, the other 10 are a success. If you can get a few DYKs or a FA on theme, that will be a big help. Everybody watching should try to do a little bit. Jehochman ^Talk 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

UFO fringe pusher

I see you have previously warned this user about pushing a fringe agenda (see their talk page), and they seem to be at it again on several articles:

• Dr_Fil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

TFA for Feb 11

Glad to see there's still interest in doing something for Feb 11. I'm still a little confused about what your plans are for "Today's Featured Article" on Feb 11 are. As Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page shows, there's it's pretty slim pickings and any article we pick from that group will be tangential at best.

At the same time, I'm told that there isn't enough time to get a new article to FA. And I'm also told that it's forbidden to re-run an existing FA that has already been at TFA before.

As you look at the list of articles that haven't appeared at TFA, do any jump out to you as appropriate for FA? Alternatively, do you think we should "push" a new article to FA in an expedited timeframe, and if so, which article?

I had assumed re-runs would be okay, but assuming not-- where should we devote our efforts? --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think expedited push would be the best plan. There's no reason it can't be done if we get enough people involved. How about National Security Agency? Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Put that or a related article that's half decent at Peer Review immediately and let me know and I'll prioritize it.--MONGO 17:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Peer review/National Security Agency/archive1. This article looks rather complete and well-referenced. If anything it will need pruning and some copy editing and formatting. We should be able to get this done in time if we have enough hands working on it. Jehochman ^Talk 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• How about this one? Nineteen Eighty-Four. Jehochman ^Talk 00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  One or the other...I wished I had looked over the NSA one a little better as I see it has over 200 refs...it's a big article. We don't need too many hands or we'll be stepping on each others toes...the article needs to be done with PR by the 28th and done with FAC by the 7th...it's going to be tight.--MONGO 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Hum....I bet on my way home tonight....a black Chevrolet Suburban will suddenly be in front of me and come to a screeching halt, causing me to also stop.....another Suburban will come in behind me followed immediately by two more, one on each side of my vehicle....Seal Team Six will hop out, gag, bag and drag me from my vehicle and poof! I'll simply be erased...it will be like I never existed...because THEY are watching....--MONGO 17:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  One way to deal with a really big article is to prune it down to size. Big chunks of detail can be summarized and then linked to daughter articles. That's how we dealt with Gamma ray burst. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  Its too big, too subject to vandalism and there isn't enough time...we need to figure out a pretty neutral and much easier article to play with due to the time limitations. I took a stab at the article yesterday but its no where near FA level considering the time limitations.--MONGO 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Nineteen Eighty-Four. Classic, relevant, and worth improving. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC needed

There's a growing consensus that we need a sitewide RFC, asap, to discuss any plans to do something special on Feb 11. I'm hesitant to set it up myself, as my attempt to lead this didn't work out so well. Would you consider setting one up? --HectorMoffet (talk)

If I come up with an idea, I like to see if there's a second person who can put it up for a vote. If the idea has merit, somebody else will come along and start the discussion. Meanwhile, why don't we focus on beefing up our articles on mass surveillance. Teaching on Feb 11 is good, but also the other 364 days of the year are worthwhile. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Jehochman, you state: "I don't edit on behalf of clients." So I understand that now you don't edit on behalf of your clients but may I please ask you haw many articles you wrote/edited on behalf of your clients in the past? Thanks.50.150.101.201 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Outrage (2009 film) -- seems "bending BLP" is in vogue

The Larry Craig material is weakly sourced, and not in the film, though Sportfan5000 says Barney Frank calls Craig a hypocrite -- but I do not see how the material added is strongly sourced for a claim of fact here to back Sportfan500s edit summary that he needs to expose "hypocrisy." It might belong in a Craig article, but is simply argumentation in an article on the film (see talk page). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument seems to fly in the face of the entire Larry Craig scandal article. This is well documented material and Frank's comments on Craig are also well-sourced. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument would seem to imply we could put Craig's entire BLP into the article -- which is absurd. As noted by others at WP:BLP/N, the article about the film is about the film. Sorry. Collect (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC feedback?

I've nominated Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for WP:FAC, but it hasn't gotten any feedback. Would you look it over and see if it can be improved to meet our highest standards? --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on DYK and FA

So, trying to nominate content that 100% complies with existing main page policies, we have a series of DYK nominations. I do not know of a good FA that has not already been run.

IF you and/or Sj have advise on how to proceed, it would be most welcome; in the mean time, I'm just keeping my head down and writing articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding you

There's a discussion regarding your editing on Jimbo's talkpage[15]. Just thought you would like to know. Ripberger (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lyrtech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lyrtech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyrtech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing

I have initiated a discussion about your paid editing activities here at WP:AN. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I don't do paid editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just one more question

Jehochman, you said: For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Wikipedia I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC) ,and if it is ethical and everybody wins, why don't disclose the names of the editors who is willing to fix up the articles by request of the subjects? I mean nobody is doing anything wrong, just the opposite:Wikipedia gets not only a better article, but also the donations, so why not to do it in an open? Thanks.24.6.208.209 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good question. Jimbo doesn't like the idea of editing for donation so I probably will not proceed in that direction because I respect his opinion in this matter. On the other hand, Wikipedia is very arbitrary. We cover some people and organizations and ignore others. Many businesses turn to paid editing because they feel it is best for their interests. Articles for creation is severely back logged. The white hat method of requesting an article doesn't work too well. I am not sure how to organize things better, but it is a conversation that should happen between Wikipedia and the business community. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whilst aware of previous negative interactions (feel fell to delete this) are you going to post something on your website about this.? Obviously your website is an appalling mess (wow-still using tables for content control!) However it would be nice to see something there. Better yet, a removal of your self promotion on "your" user space -eg the self aggrandising twitter, Facebook, linked-in etc. Don't get me wrong, I think on balance you're here to help. Nuking the user page may help the community start thinking that too.Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My website performs super. I'm not touching it! Not broken, don't fix. State of the art code from 2006. My developers are appalled with it, but there are client projects that take priority. I'll think about your suggestion for my user page. Go ahead and edit, if you like, and I may keep it. Mention I gave permission in the edit summary so you don't get reverted by a watcher. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I must agree that there's nowt wrong with 2006 code at times :). It's just a suggestion about your user page, but it is rather peppered with what can be seen as self promotional. I'll leave it alone myself, but thank's for being receptive to the feedback. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I tidied my user page. Hopefully people will react better to it. If you try http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/, you will be hard pressed to find any website that loads as fast as mine. This morning my home page is benchmarking at 259ms from the Dallas test point. www.google.com is 708ms. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugo Colombo

Please see Talk:Ugo Colombo (real estate) for the genesis of this article. It looks like I provided technical help to an IP editor who wanted to create a disambiguation page so they could start an article. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you claiming to have no connection whatsoever with this subject and that you were unfamiliar with the company until coming across it on a disambiguation page? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editing is allowed at Wikipedia. While I have voluntarily identified myself, this does not give you the right to audit my real life associations or activities. I decline to answer any such question. What I said above is what happened. An IP editor asked me for help (via email at first) to create a disambiguation page. To facilitate the process I created a very short stub. The IP and other editors then added content to the article. Please feel free to check the article and make improvements. Please do not ask me to "out" the IP editor. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, could you please tell me why that IP editor asked you to create the stub? Did he have any reasons to believe that you are the right person to ask for such kind of help? Thanks.76.126.141.41 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't run background checks on people who ask me for help. If they are polite and don't seem to be up to mischief, I help anybody who asks. I frequently travel and speak at conferences or events and write articles. I come in contact with a lot of people, and many want some sort of help with the Internet. The real question to ask is whether the edits were problematic, and if so what should be done about them. If I discover that somebody made incorrect edits after I helped them, I would let them know how to do better. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future if people ask me for help, would you feel better if I just sent them to the help desk? Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The real question to ask is if you had some kind of COI with the subject of the article because if you had, it should have been disclosed even if the edits are not problematic at all. The other question to ask is, if that IP who asked for your help had COI with the subject of the article because if he had, you as an admin should have explained to him that writing an article about himself or his friend is not a good idea. Otherwise I am satisfied with your response. 76.126.141.41 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no COI with this subject. I'm not sure of the relationship between the other editor and the subject. I don't give people the third degree when they ask for help (AGF), but I do try to make them aware of Wikipedia policies. Hopefully people follow policy, but sometimes they might not. Newbies often don't know how to write neutrally or to cite sources. We need to be patient and tolerant while helping them develop better skills. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Argh, in that case, as a piece of friendly advice, don't answer "Are you claiming to have no connection whatsoever with this subject?" with "I decline to answer any such question". Like "Congressman, did you sleep with that hooker?" -- "No comment", this makes our spidey-sense tingle. I understand your position that you don't give out the names of your clients (which is fine as long as you don't engage with their pages), but there's no reason to protect your non-client-list! Right? "Is X a client" -- "No" can't betray a confidence or violate an agreement! You finally said "I have no COI with this subject" so IMO you should have said so up front. You need to work on this if you ever run for Congress... Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If I say "no" when asked about a non-client and refuse to answer when asked about clients, that would give it all away! My choice is to answer always or to never answer. In any case I have said that I haven't edited client articles recently. My situation is complex as hell. I once did work for a subsidiary of the New York Times. Am I spamming if I use the NYT as a source? What if I was hired in a patent case against Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! Am I permanently barred from editing any article touching one of those companies? What if I edit the bio of my third cousin once removed, Ehud Barak? People like to think COI is clearcut, but it isn't. How involved is too involved? Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see your point. Your situation is complex. It's complex because you don't release your client list. That's perfectly legitimate and probably common in some fields, but it's unusual: most businesses list and in fact crow about their clients. So it's awkward. My opinion is that any Wikipedian ought not to be in a position where they can't answer "yes" or "no" to the question "Say, do you have a business relationship with the subject of article X", provided that there's reasonable cause to ask the question and it's not just a fishing expedition.

What we're looking for here is a 1) business/financial relationship that is 2) fairly direct and is 3) substantial. If there's reason to think that that might in play then it's fair to ask. (Other types of conflict of interest are important too, but that's not the issue here and I don't have an opinion on that.)

So I dunno. It's kind of difficult situation both ways. Editing the Wikipedia is supposed to be fun (relaxing, diverting, satisfying, whatever) in aggregate (granting that part of that is doing not-fun stuff as part of the larger deal), and if all this is annoying to you, you might want to consider sticking to articles on the Civil War or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My recent solution has been to stick with ITN, and to edit articles about events and disasters like plane crashes, boat sinkings, storms, meteorites and gamma ray bursts. The other thing I can do is slap {{connected contributor}} on articles where somebody else might think I would be involved. That way I'm not giving up my client list, but I am signalling situations where somebody should look closely at my editing. You can check my website and see that I don't publicize clients, except for a few cases where I've been disclosed as a consultant in legal papers that are in the public record. (Such clients include: U-Haul, Brookstone, Lorillard, and adversaries include Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and PODS. See http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/services/expert-witness.shtml.) Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman, is Ehud Barak really your cousin? Have you met him? BTW I emailed you to the email address you specified in you wikimedia commons account.24.6.208.209 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ehud really is my third cousin once removed.(http://www.brog.org/brog.pdf see p. 7 and p. 11) My grandmother even visited with his mother (?) somewhere near Philadelphia, a long time ago. I haven't met him yet. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is really impressive and it's great to know your roots! Thanks for sharing.24.6.208.209 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PSC Inc.

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit of yours[16]. I won't revert, but how is that very brief article not a stub? There's plainly more that could be written about the company. Robofish (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an intentional edit. Must have hit the wrong button! Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Greetings, although my ban will likely be initiated soon (or sent up to Arbcom) I just wanted to take a moment in my last edits here to thank you for your oppose of my ban. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gang rape recheck

Can you recheck Gang rape article? Especially the last edits, and clarify if they are important, reliably sourced, etc. OccultZone (Talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is one of my least favorite topics, but I see that the white supremacists are back pushing their silly crap as a "source". Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You should check the recent source, that has been added by the same editor. We cannot deny some of his fair contribution, if we talk about the same article, but the recent edits are either controversial or badly researched. OccultZone (Talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The day we fight back

Jehochman, you had a great idea, and I've spent three weeks trying to provide you with options. But I can't generate the consensus for you-- it's not one of my skills.

I thought your idea was worth working for-- but do you think your idea is worth arguing for? There is a discussion underway at User talk:Jimmy Wales. Join us, please. We have too many followers and not nearly enough leaders. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What we've accomplished here is starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance. Some new articles were created and editors are building content. This is all good. Whether we get content on the home page today, some other day, or not at all, it is a success in that we increased coverage of these topics. Today is just one day. Stopping pervasive government surveillance of innocent citizens will take many years of hard work. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you, you have been very helpful bpage (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Farewell, and thank you

Hey Jehocham! Thanks for your help in the last month. It's been great working with you. It was always a long shot that we would do something "special"-- as it should be, and I'm not at all disappointed that a controversial idea wasn't adopted. I had a lot of fun working on it.

I suspect that if someone other than me had handled your idea, it would have probably worked. I have the courage of a gnome, not the courage of a leader. We never got a leader, so your idea never got anywhere-- but I think the right person could have done it. Either way, I learned a lot, I read lots of FAs, got a picture to Featured, created like 8 or so new articles on relevant topics, helped start a WikiProject, and got to experience all kinds of parts of Wikipedia I never really even knew existed.

Unfortunately, I also found out some things about how parts of Wikipedia are run, and they just don't sit with me. I spent two years without really looking at mainpage, and I probably could have happily spent two years more without looking. If you like sausage, don't watch how the sausage is made, I suppose.

I couldn't leave without saying goodbye and thanks for all your hard work! If you ever get bored with with this place, come over to scholarpedia-- all the joy of editing Wikipedia with any of the drama of editing Wikipedia. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review

Regards,

—Neotarf (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NinaGreen

Just a quick question, if you've blocked this user for "spamming", why haven't you removed the "spam"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Because some users are fussy about managing their own user pages. On article talk pages I'd remove it. The spammed users are all very savvy and can figure out how to deal with it for themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. So it's not really spam? Spam would be removed. Just a clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@TRM, by that thinking graffiti isn't vandalism when the owner of the graffitied wall hasn't cleaned it off. More to the point, as Jehochman made clear on the blocked user's talk page, the attitude underlying the "spam" is as problematic as the spam itself. AGK [•] 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I would remove the "spam" if I blocked someone for propagating "spam". Jehochman does it differently, and you, AGK, do too. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

But this one was reverted. —Neotarf (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

nina green block

Is there an actual policy reason for the block?

In any event, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review NE Ent 03:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC

Yes. I spelled it out clearly. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

Past issues with the admin in question..? Honey, I haven't researched previous actions by the admin in question, but he became one exactly one month ago, so you may be asking Giano to make bricks without straw. See also NE Ent's statement, which suggests that the, hmm, errors are really worse from a newbie admin — not sure I agree, but it's certainly one way of looking at it. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

I don't think I can add much to that said by my learned friend Bishonen. Mr Gorman is a university Wikipedian in residence, he lectures in Wikipedia and is a former employee/intern of the WMF, so one woudl expect him to have a basic knowledge of our funny, little ways.  Giano  18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess one goof up in the first month is a pattern, and not a good one. Perhaps that could be highlighted in the request. Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. No one believes what one tells them anyway. Wikipedia collectively and its Arbs have the foresight and memory of a goldfish. I shall still be here in the future to say "I told you so." The worry is that I've said it now so many times now, I may start to look like a parrot.  Giano  19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all! This is what you look like! File:Animalibrí.gif Bishonen | talk 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

And a bit like this! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

Opinion sought re: User:Drsjpdc

Jehochman, I'm coming to you as an admin who first blocked (in January 2010), and then unblocked (in June 2010), Drsjpdc (talk · contribs), based on a community ban and his appeal of the ban. (Ban discussion here, unban discussion here.) It is my understanding that the user's unbanning was based on his promise not to edit in the field of chiropractic or alternative medicine, but I do not feel he has kept that promise. Not much more than a month after the lifting of his ban (July 2010), he began editing chiropractic articles again, and today we see him embroiled in discussions over his non-neutral edits all over again. I'm considering taking him back to WP:AN to reassess the community ban, but I'd like your input on the matter before I do.

Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the anti-Chiropractic forces win this one. I quit. Done trying to improve this area of Wikipedia. Just not worth the effort to fight narrow mindedness and vicious people with long memories. Goodbye. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

I just wanted to say thanks for trying to close the AN thread. As I mentioned in the discussion earlier, I knew my fan club wasn't about to let it go. There are still a lot of haters who haven't gotten the opportunity to dance on my grave yet. Plus, they'll just keep making shit up that I didn't do and associating that to me. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	Trolling admin of the week award
	This award is given only to the most dedicated rouge administrators for proficiency in trolling poor unsuspecting editors. I hope you wear this with honor, as you have certainly worked hard to earn it! — Technical 13 (t • e • c) 16:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Trollololol... Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note

I maybe offline for a few hours today. I'm not ignoring you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)