User talk:Jehochman/Archive 24

Thanks again

I appreciate you closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Coffee. The discussion had really deteriorated and became a forum for venting anger and dismay. No thoughtful decisions are made when emotions are ruling people's actions and thoughtful action is especially required on an WP noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• But we don't normally close discussions we have been involved in. Do you realise you made 23 edits to that discussion, then closed it with your 24th? Next time it would be better to let someone else who had not taken part in the discussion close. --John (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I had no stake in the outcome, and the discussion was not about me. My comments were for the purpose of moderation, not to advocate any particular position. This particular discussion was causing a real harm that you probably don't understand, and I decided that it was best to stop it. Rules are guidance, not a straightjacket. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, I get that, which is why I let your close stand, even though it was improper. As regards the real harm which I "probably don't understand", feel free to explain it to me. --John (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I agree with the close. I am very sad that Coffee seems to have left us, as sad as I am over Eric and Giano's blocks. Just because I'm "for" Eric (whatever that means--I'm part of his posse, as I've seen others say often enough) doesn't mean I'm "against" Coffee. Too many in that discussion can't seem to separate the person from the one decision. As I've said before, in this place or that, I considered Eric's remark ill-advised, even in poor taste, but few people here get dealt the crap that he gets on a regular basis (with the exception of Jimbo, I suppose, which is kind of funny). Jehochman, as far as I'm concerned you have some gravitas here, and for you to unblock Eric would be a great signal. What that's supposed to signal I'm not sure, except the fact that blocks aren't the right solution for every problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• That was bad. Thanks for stepping up Jon. Swarm ^X 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

question

Is there anything I can do about this? Just one example of the same thing. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignore it. I am waiting for the evidence against Lightbreather to reach critical mass. Hopefully she will stop misusing Wikipedia as a battlefield before that happens. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No comment. Thanks for letting me know that I was being discussed. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Sunday March 22 Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 (RSVP on-wiki or at bit.ly/wikidaybarnard). 10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

COI related article nominated for deletion

Hi Jehochman,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 22:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

U-Haul

There is a template on the Talk page saying you are affiliated with them, however I could not find any edits from you in article-space or Talk space. Thought I would check with you before removing it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably true. Please do as you like. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday April 29 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday April 29 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I would support this idea

I do pretty much agree with your idea about deleting the SPI that you voiced here. Out of an abundance of caution, I elected to leave the next steps with that page to other functionaries and administrators, because at a certain point further actions on my part could be construed as trying to force a certain result. Well, that's why there are 50-odd functionaries and a thousand or so admins, so others can add an impartial or at least different perspective. I'd encourage caution; this is likely to get worse before it gets better, although if Arbcom can pull itself together to open the case it might calm things down a bit. Technically they have an absolute majority to open so it doesn't require the full 24 hours, as I recall. Risker (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My plan is to wait and let a third admin delete that page. If there are three of us who agree, then it is non-contentious. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were 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/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I paged you at Talk:Inspire (magazine) a few days ago - I think semi-protecting talk pages is generally a bad idea, especially this one. I wanted to give you one more chance to comment before I try WP:UNPROTECT. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This page doesn't qualify as "generally" in any way. It is an unusual situation. You can try whatever you like, but if IP hopping socks try to use the page for non-encyclopedic purposes, I will exclude them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I can't think of much more encyclopedic than citing your sources. I don't see the rationale for excluding IP editors. Wnt (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP editors in question are trying to use Wikipedia to publicize their material, and linking to unreliable and unverified sources. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday June 10 WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You mentioned chiropractic here. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Neuraxis. Things are not looking good at acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies...

...for agreeing with you on AN regarding tagging, because it most probably exposed you to the trouting you received from The Rambling Man, who is still smarting from my referring to him on AN as "one of the worst admins on Wikipedia", and not a single admin came to his defense. He's rather on a campaign against me now, egging on other editors to file AN/I reports against me, and generally acting in exactly the manner that caused me to question his for suitability for adminship. At this point, if I was to post a comment in favor of WP:V, TRM would find a way to disagree with it. In this current case, you certainly didn't deserve a trout (as another editor noted), and I'm sorry that my action may have resulted in one. BMK (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No worries, little Jehochman surely like fish. BMK, image of cute little Super Arb much appreciated! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! BMK (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course BMK wants to make this all about him, which it is most certainly not. Had he posted in that discussion? I hadn't even noticed! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I love your boat race articles, but it's really unnecessary for you to follow BMK here to add your two cents. I was planning not to get involved in this little feud, and suggest you do the same: don't be involved in a feud. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't appreciate BMK using various venues to actually lie about my behaviour. And good to see I should add you to the list of the BMK apologists, allowing him to continue to swear at and bully new users. Well done you. It's far from a "little feud", it's about BMK's ongoing abhorrent behaviour, with the "what the fuck"s and "asshole"s all over the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. If you think he's a pig, or worse, why engage in this mud wrestling? Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do like fishes, my precious. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You should be receiving in the mail soon your Beyond My Ken Apologists Club starter pack, with lots of fun games for you and your friends to enjoy, plus an ultra-secret decoder ring to send ultra-secret messages to each other. Plenty of fun for the whole family! BMK (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The above comment to TRM is purely theoretical. Please don't take it personally. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A theoretical pig... would that be Schroedinger's swine? BMK (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

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/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

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/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Roper-Industries.png

Thank you for uploading File:Roper-Industries.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:PI Acton.png

Thank you for uploading File:PI Acton.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing

Hello. I understand that you are busy. Maybe another volunteer could look into this. I am bringing this proposal to WP:AN. Italick (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nina Green

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello Jehochman. Could you unblock NinaGreen? I am asking if you would give her the same latitude to return to editing here without making apologies or applying through ArbCom that Floquenbeam gave to Barney_the_barney_barney. Thank you for giving the idea a moment of your attention. Italick (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm too busy to research this properly. She should make an appeal through the standard pathways and somebody will consider it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You blocked her on 12 February 2014 because she posted a large message (about 5,000 characters) to user pages of all of the following users on 12 February 2014:

Worm That Turned, Timotheus Canens, Seraphimblade, Newyorkbrad, NativeForeigner, LFaraone,

GorillaWarfare, Floquenbeam, David Fuchs, Carcharoth, Beeblebrox, AGK,

Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies

Ninagreen should not have been indefinitely blocked. A period of time should have elapsed by now after which she could come back to edit. Italick (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If she wants to appeal, she can do so. Your involvement is not helping her cause one bit. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday July 8 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Planetary flyby

Hey. Thanks for the ITN linking. Sorry about the confusion, I hadn't realized that planetary flyby was a redirect to space probe, I had assumed that we had a proper separate article. Funny enough, there's a note from 2013 at Talk:Planetary flyby about it being a strange redirect.

I un-redirected and expanded planetary flyby just now, but in searching around, it seems there are also lunar flybys (mentioned in articles such as Timeline of Solar System exploration). I'm wondering whether a more generic title might be appropriate? Perhaps celestial flyby? Though in searching Google, that term doesn't seem very common. Do you happen to know of a better generic term for space-related flybys? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Search engine optimization methods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Search engine optimization methods 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/Search engine optimization methods (2nd nomination) 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. Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday August 2 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com) 1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns. Subway: ​ to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line) We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

SRI International

I thought you might have an interest in this. The page was brought to my attention by an employee from one of their competitors, who was wondering why their article doesn't look like that. CorporateM (Talk) 02:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Is there anything that can be done about the editor Winkelvi, who is essentially trying to take control of numerous articles he edits? For example, today Winkelvi has made, so far, over 60 edits to Josh Duggar in just a few hours! I asked another experienced editor I saw in an article talk page discussion about this, but haven't received a reply. And I see you're an administrator so I was hoping you could provide some guidance or action. Winkelvi reported me and several other editors for edit-warring in articles he "controls". I'm not sure, but I don't think any have resulted in blocks. Thanks for any help you can provide. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Winkelvi's outrageous editing at Josh Duggar have just resumed and I see that he has now even reverted me, using a bogus edit summary ("too wordy for the lede") as he does with many, many editors. As you will see, I not only added a reliable source but also an important wikilink, which he inexplicably removed. His editing is getting out of control and essentially destroying articles, not only because of his extraordinarily high number of edits in individual articles, but also his unilateral declaration of what's acceptable with regard to many other editors' contributions. Finally, his number of reverts just today is probably too high to count. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: Jehochman, Lootbrewed has followed me to the Duggar article and attempted edit warring with me there today. It is not the first article he has followed me to (he has followed me to noticeboards and user talk pages, as well). I have been editing the article since mid-July 2015. The WikiHistory statistics found here show that his first edit there was today [1]. That edit was a change to something I had just edited. When I explained upon redoing the work in an edit summary that the wording I provided was to give clarity, he then reverted my change with a very aggressive edit summary [2]. He then changed something else in the article that I had just edited [3]. At that point it seemed that Lootbrewed was trying to get me into an edit war, and I decided to ignore him and continue editing.

The article itself was non-MOS compliant throughout with use of first names, present tense, and so on. I had time, so I decided to clean it up. Why Lootbrewed thinks this is a bad thing and shows ownership, I don't know. Perhaps it is because he is new, only has a little over 200 edits, and is not yet clear on how Wikipedia is edited and what normal editing looks like. From the nature of his edits, reverts, and comments, it does seem he has some mistaken notions about editing: that one cannot make a lot of edits in one day; that we are not allowed to change the edits of others; that editing here and commenting at article talk pages in the way of gaining consensus is a competition.

Back to the Duggar article: All of my edits were to improve the article, and that's exactly what they did. Lootbrewed, however, does seem to be hounding my edits and trying very hard to goad me into an argument (as evidenced by this comment he made at the Duggar article talk page) and get me in trouble (as evidenced by this post left at another editor's talk page). His comments regarding removing a reference and content he added is untrue: they weren't removed, they were put where they belonged: in the body of the article [4], [5].

I would appreciate it if Lootbrewed would stop hounding me, stop bringing up my block log, stop ignoring AGF and civility and stop doing his level best to see me sanctioned and/or blocked. I'm not interested in fighting with him. I don't think it's too much to ask to be allowed to edit in peace. That is hard to do, however, when you are editing an article and someone follows you there, seemingly to disrupt and antagonize. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. How many people can one editor accuse of hounding them, Winkelvi? You have been repeatedly told there is no grand conspiracy of editors out to "get" you. The irony is your record demonstrates an aberrant obsession of edit-warring, frivolous ANI reporting, and generally carrying-out vendettas against those who "cross" you by pummeling them to sheer exhaustion until you've made WP so unenjoyable they give-up and move-on. And despite a dozen editors commenting on this tendency to malcontent, you seem to be legitimately convinced that everyone is conspiring to "hound" you. Your behavior is so outlandishly unacceptable and seriously disruptive to the pleasant and efficient operations of WP that it's a shock you've only been blocked five times in your relatively short time here. At this point it really seems we're all just kidding ourselves if we think a sixth, seventh, or eighth block is going to produce a corrective miracle. BlueSalix (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Lootbrewed has now just reverted the content moved from the lede of the Duggar article and has started intentionally edit warring [6]. The edit summary gives an idea of his aggressive mindset that reveals a battleground mentality; "Restore content rmvd by Winkelvi using bogus edit summary "too wordy". Winkelvi, please stop editing this article! You have made approximately 70 edits today in a matter of just hours! You've also far exceeded the number of reverts allowed. Stop now.". If these issues cannot be resolved here - and I hope they are, because I HATE going to noticeboards -- I will have no choice but to take other measures to get the hounding to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, your disruptive editing history and battles with a countless number of editors speaks for itself. For the record, although my first edits to the Duggar were today, my interest in it isn't new at all. I've been following that article ever since the previous scandal was widely reported. And before you falsely accuse another editor of following you around, perhaps you should be reminded of the warning issued to you just yesterday. In terms of my editing at Josh Duggar today, Jehochman can easily look at the article's edit history to see who's done what. I doubt that will turn out well for you since I've made just a few edits (which you reverted), and you've made about 70, so far. I'm sorry, but you are, quite frankly, out of control with regard to your editing style. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea why the foregoing is on Jehochman's user page (which I have watched for many months, lest I be lumped into some kind of conspiracy). What I can say is that Winkelvi pops up on noticeboards like a bad apple, constantly, and has made himself a pest in numerous articles and an annoyance to numerous editors. I first encountered him a while back in Bess Myerson, where his edits at the time appear to be similar to what he has done in Duggar and elsewhere, and that resulted in an immense and time-wasting drama on ANI. That was commenced by someone else, and as I recall people from various articles arrived and multiple articles were discussed. He agreed to a topic ban and then reneged, and along the way was blocked for something or other. Administrators appear to bend over backwards to give him a break, due to a purported condition that he supposedly has that he announces with great flourish on his user page. That has to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Me too. Hochman's page on watchlist, Winkelvi all over the place and annoyance. Coincidence, conspiracy or too many editor conflicts? Dave Dial (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The only annoyance I've been to you, Dave, is that we don't see eye to eye on the Shaun King article. In fact, from what I can see, there are more editors at that article who don't see eye to eye with you than don't see eye to eye with me. So what's your sudden presence at this talk page really about? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Coretheapple. I'm not sure why this is on Jehochman's page either and we should probably stop cluttering it up. Since my previous post, I've unfortunately been forced to go to ANI by Winkelvi and that's probably the more appropriate venue, though you are correct that he (and a second editor with whom he's tightly coordinated) seem to have a Golden Ticket due to their frequently announced medical conditions. I usually just try to walk the opposite direction when I encounter an article Winkelvi has fortified himself in, my (probably ultimately fruitless) visit to ANI right now is because he's followed me to my Talk page and is blasting it with both barrels and - like Tenebrae - I'm at my wits end. BlueSalix (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• My view, Winkelvi, is that you are a catalyst for conflict and then you are likely to get indefinitely blocked sooner or later. It's really a personality thing. Some people dislike conflict; others enjoy it. You seem to be the latter kind of person, which means that Wikipedia isn't the right website for you. Why don't you go to Reddit or some other website that welcomes online drama? Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Request advice

Hi, Jehochman. I sincerely regret that I must bother you with this, since calm months have gone by since you graciously offered on 15:28, 8 December 2014] that "should there be further needling" between editor Winkelvi and to "come to my talk page and I will deal with it directly."

I had not been bothered by Winkelvi since you posted that, shortly after he had promised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865 on 03:57, 8 December 2014 that he " can avoid interacting with Tenebrae without a formal/official interaction ban." Yet on on Sunday, from out of the blue, he came to a 3RR report I had filed. against an unrelated anon IP, specifically to attack me [7] by groundlessly and aggressively "propos[ing] a boomerang" against me. His claims were so baseless and needling that, finally, another editor called him on it [8]. He then went to the article's talk page, where he again insisted on poking at me — despite having had no previous interest in the article until seeing that I was there.

I did try to defuse the situation, which escalated at the article talk page. I offered that despite his not keeping his vow to stay away from me that I wouldn't bring him up to AN/I or IBAN if he would simply agree again not to interact with me (in second paragraph at [9]). He responded with a veiled threat that "it [would] not end well for [me]". [10].

And it isn't just me: This year so far, at least two other editors have also accused him of "hounding" them — their word (Joseph Prasad at [11] and Coretheapple at 21:44, 22 January 2015 on this page, where I can't seem to find a diff URL). Another talked about his "battleground mentality" [12]. Even admin Bbb23, who doesn't particularly care for me, said this year (in something I was not involved with) that Winkelvi's "reaction to this report [against him] evinces at best a lack of maturity, defensively attacking the filer when Winkelvi is in the wrong." [13].

You were kind enough to offer help in this situation, so I'd like to ask your advice on what I should do. I am perplexed, for reasons I gave on my last post on the article talk page: "I don't know what need you have to keep coming after me and interacting with me. But it's apparently a need: There are millions of Wikipedia articles and thousands of editors. You don't have to interact with me. Yet you choose to. Why? Why? Why?" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, please comment on the above. Do you agree to stop interacting with editors who find your presence nettlesome? This is a big place; there's no need to associate with those who don't want to. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I already stopped interacting with him, even though he insists on continuing to interact and initiate contact with me. Take a look at the 3RR filing he was recently involved in at which I commented. He wouldn't stop initiating contact with me - even though he insisted I do so with him. Same at the Gigi Hadid talk page. He says he doesn't want anything more to do with me, yet he keeps talking to me and making accusations and bringing up garbage from over a year ago as well as poking and goading me into a fight. Even at that article's talk page, it wasn't required of him to respond the first time he did. He could have left it alone, but didn't. I was only trying to help with a content dispute; he is the one who took it to an unnecessary level with more accusations and finger-pointing and rehashing of old arguments long since forgotten by me. I finally decided that it was a "I hate you, please don't leave" kind of situation and made the choice to just stop answering his questions and responding to his accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I won't argue. If Winkelvi stays away from me, that's all I ask. But for the record, he said at 02:38, 18 August 2015 that he "would" keep interacting with me: "Sorry, but I'm not going to make promises ...[to not interact with you] to keep you from filing an AN/I." [14]. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And also for the record, I find the armchair psychology accusing me of "I hate you, please don't leave" behavior offensive and a personal attack on my ethics and apparently mental health. It was uncalled-for aggression. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no record here so don't worry about it. The both of you, to avoid irritating each other and more importantly yourselves, just steer clear when you see the other person. If Tenebrae is edit warring, surely somebody will notice and take action. There's no need for Winkelvi to comment on it. Likewise, Tenebrae, please try to conserve oprobrium. Feel free to return here if I can help in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My sincere thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi again ... I can't believe this

He has followed me yet again to a page he's never previously edited: Brian Austin Green: Here's the article's history page going back to 2010, long before Winkelvi joined Wikipedia.

You can see his edits on the history page. They happen to be contentious, unilateral changes (despite other current editors having been collegially discussing the issue on the article's talk page). Yet even if they were the most wonderful edits in the world, he agreed right here just days ago not to follow me around.

I won't even get into the other falsehoods of his most recent post above, but I think this puts a lie to his incredible claim that I want to interact with him. He came to that article where he'd never before been, and where I've been actively editing and actively discussing on the talk page. Please help me. I don't know what to do anymore and in an ANI he'll just lie like he did above about me following him, which as I'm sure isn't even a question anymore of being a blatant falsehood. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, this is a final warning. Please don't follow Tenebrae to articles you have not edited previously. If you do the block will be 6 days, double the last one that wasn't reversed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I swear I did not follow him there. I had no clue he had edited the article. I went there via a recent changes patrol. I was asked by another editor on my talk page (he came there based on my edits of the Green article) to go to the talk page and join in discussion/an RfC. After seeing Tenebrae on the talk page of the article yesterday, I decided to stay away from the article. If you notice, I haven't edited it since then. My edits came BEFORE he commented on the talk page yesterday at the RfC. And, honestly, I thought he was following me again when I saw him pop up on the talk page, but decided just leaving there would be best. And, just now doing a larger look, I see he's been at the article (via the talk page) for a while. I honestly had no clue. Based on all this, I'd appreciate it if you would null your warning. I have thousands of articles on my watch list and frequently do Recent Changes Patrol. I'm not going to check every new article I edit to see if he has ever been there before -- that would be ridiculous. I am not following him, have no desire to do so, just as I said to you days ago (as seen above in another section). And just for the record: I have not lied and do not lie, in spite of the accusations Tenebrae made in his comments above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman - I'm away at the moment so can't give this the time it deserves, but please see a message on my Talk page from Lootbrewed regarding another just-happening instance of combative BattleWiki and possible canvassing by Winkelvi. I'm not really the type to go around "telling" on people, and Tenebrae and I rarely see eye-to-eye, but after Winkelvi's previous five blocks he/she indicated he/she had learned techniques to positively interact with editors who have different opinions and it's appearing those techniques have again been forgotten. BlueSalix (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you are still hounding my edits and stirring the pot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh sheesh. In the last 12 months we've edited the same article space together twice. [15]. No one is "out to get" you. I'm not sure what kind of game you're playing but count me out, please. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The only way you got to this discussion was either by monitoring my talk page or looking at my contributions. You brought up another article/situation, totally unrelated to this, in an attempt to poison the well. You even pinged another uninvolved editor to come here. You are hounding me. Stop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. I do have your Talk page on my Watch list due to aforementioned issues. I regret you feel watching your Talk page constitutes hounding, but am happy to agree to disagree. BlueSalix (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also Shaun King (activist) in which Winkelvi refused to stop his blind reverts of my edits intended to bring the WP:COATRACKed article up to some semblance of compliance with the BLP policy, and instead went running straight to AN3, where two admins agreed that my edits upheld both the letter and spirit of foundational policy related to fair treatment of biographical subjects. Then again yesterday he engaged in another revert war, using misleading edit summaries to hide the fact that he was removing a direct quote from the article subject from the article's lede which directly denounced the WP:COATRACKed claims. This editor's issues don't seem to be isolated to one or two articles. Winklevi, you should probably consider that when half a dozen different editors all have significant issues with you on different articles all at the same time, the problem isn't them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And now we see the piling on and shark circling/hounding expands. Obviously, you also followed me here, NBSB. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He's also been canvassing editors with his same colorful block history to Jehochman's talk page [16]. Birds of a feather? BlueSalix (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please keep me out of it, and if you could also stop monitoring my talk page. Stirring the pot indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Given our past issues, I would kindly suggest you stay away from me, and I will do the same. Go do something constructive instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My comments to Cwobeel were not canvassing. Following me to his page is more evidence of hounding on your part. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A more likely explanation is that, like me, some of these editors probably have User talk:Jehochman page on their Watchlist and noticed the activity here, rather than scrutinizing another editor's contribution list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be an AGF conclusion - and if it were true, would please me to no end because I don't like to think negatively about others. That said, BlueSalix already admitted to following me here in comments above. So, the possibility you are suggesting, Liz, is only half a possibility. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked 408 editors had this page watchlisted. I'm the 49th most watched user on Wikipedia. Winkelvi, either there's a conspiracy out to get you or else you're acting in a way that causes multiple editors to be annoyed. I see no evidence of a conspiracy. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I didn't do a damned thing for Tenebrae (who actually is the one thinking conspiracy by baselessly accusing me of following him around) to get so upset about. I went to an article he has edited not knowing that he edits it. That's all that happened. As I already stated, I went there via the recent changes page. After I was invited to comment on the talk page, I saw Tenebrae there, decided not to comment because he was there, and that was that. Note that it took Tenebrae nearly a day to bring this to you after I had edited the article. Nothing happened to get him in a dither. I was there and then I wasn't. It really is that simple. This is a non-starter. As far as the other editors chiming in, Blue Salix is likely using me to get to Cwobeel with whom he has an old axe to grind. NorthBySouthBaranof is still pissed because I took him to 3RR last week. I don't see a conspiracy, I just see several editors who like drama. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm "using" you to "get to" another editor? Are you listening to yourself? I know you've been told this by others, but let me reiterate: you are not the subject of a far-reaching conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is more at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reflexed block review, although only some of the current participants are there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, don't you dare even talk about me. Don't ascribe motives to me, and don't analyze me. You are a clever, dissembling manipulator, who claims to do nothing wrong and so one editor after another after another after another must simply be out to get you because they "like drama." Jesus. I've caught you in enough falsehoods that I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Along with all the other things you just called me, you make the claim that you've "caught" me in "falsehoods". That's a pretty strong charge. Please elaborate with undeniable proof -- and when you do, please also provide diffs. If you do not or cannot, I hope you will strike that statement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak for Tenebrae, however, just a few hours ago another editor had to advise you that "I wanted you to know what is acceptable so that you dont make unintentional false statements." [17]. So it seems, at a very cursory glance by an uninvolved editor (me), you do in fact have a propensity to spread falsehoods and that propensity has been observed even by editors whom you haven't subjected to siege. The underlying questions at this point are (a) whether you're doing it on purpose or not, and, (b) whether you are cognizant to the disruption your unusual behavior is causing. I suspect you're not doing it on purpose. However, I am, personally, of the opinion that a six-month block would afford you the time to better familiarize yourself with WP in an observer capacity and you might be better able to positively contribute in a non-disruptive manner on your return. BlueSalix (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but AlbinoFerret wasn't saying I am someone who has a habit of lying. I've pinged him here because I'm sure he'll be interested in knowing you're using his words, twisting them like a pretzel, and turning them into something he didn't mean in order to further your agenda of seeing me blocked for 6 months. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I say he did. You asked for a specific diff of an example where you were close to spreading a falsehood and it was immediately provided to you. As for "you're using his words, twisting them like a pretzel" and my plot to "further" my ultimate "agenda" ... this is the type of insanity myself, Tenebrae, NorthBySouthBaranof, Lootbrewed, etc. have been talking about. You have been repeatedly told there is not a WP-wide conspiracy against you. No one can compel you to believe it. You can only be compelled to stop using your belief in a far-reaching, covert plot against you as a basis to disrupt WP. Anyway, the "twisting like a pretzel" thing jumped the shark, so this is my last comment here. Good luck with however this ends up for you. BlueSalix (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday September 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons: September 20 - Afrocrowd Wikipedia editathon @ Queens Library October 3 - WikiArte Latin America editathon @ MoMA October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture. Saturday October 3 WikiArte Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 11:00am - 5:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) at MoMA Cullman Education and Research Building, 4 West 54th Street All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments. Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media! Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Removing tags

Today you've removed tags from two articles which I keep an eye on and I don't think either removal was helpful. On Amfleet, you removed all the tags with the summary "go fix something -- was templated for 8 years to no avail)". I've done quite a bit of work on that article over the last few years, so the implication that no one's done anything is mildly offensive. Nevertheless, work remains to be done, so the tags are appropriate until the problems are resolved. On the Vermonter, you removed the refimprove tag from a section in which the first five paragraphs, with various specific facts, were completely uncited. That's the exact situation for which the template was intended. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not insulting your work. My point is that maintenance tag spam needs to go. People run around this place tagging articles willy nilly without leaving specific comments on the talk page. What are talk pages for if not for discussing article improvements? The article page should not be templated unless there are serious problems that the reader needs to be warned of. Neither of these articles had such problems. I read both articles before removing the tags and decided that the tags were not needed any long, possibly because of the work you had done! I also fixed some content that was obviously confused. Regarding the five uncited sentences, I read each one and decided that they were not dubious. If you don't understand something I've done, please assume I would explain if you asked. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

RFAR Spinningspark

Well put! I'm glad somebody else cares. I've tried, but I'm sure everybody's tired of hearing me go on, and after Salvio's nonchalant put-off I'm definitely done. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC).

Great minds think alike. I did not read your statement, or even notice it, prior to writing mine. I looked at the complaint, the response and what the Arbitrators said. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture. Saturday October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RFAR

well said. — Ched :  ?  14:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz...

...is an Arb clerk. WP:ARBCLERK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I left her a note requesting that she put a tag, userbox or statement on her user page. That's the first place somebody would look. I am too old to remember all the alphabet soup of pages that have been created to support our bureaucracy. Of course, a note in the edit summary is also helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

She has it at the bottom of her user-page User:Liz, but yeah I suppose placing this info on the top right corner along with her admin icon might not be a bad idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I finally found it. I had looked for the funky hat at the top right, and also at the categories at the bottom. All the stuff in between induced banner blindness and wasn't closely read. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it I will throw out the idea, @Liz: Would you mind placing an arb clerk icon in the top right of your user-page? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Just my 2c: If you want people to calm down, hatting comments isn't going to make them calmer. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

You are wise, O Jedi master!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration statement

Hi, Jehochman. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for exemption to the word count can be made on the page in question or to the Arbitration Committee mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection of image

File:New_Horizons.png

Just checking was the full protection meant to be indefinite on this, seems like overkill but figured might be another reason I couldn't see behind it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Kelly

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly, welcome to my talk page. This is the best place to address any concerns you have with my actions, not that cesspool page AN/I. I did leave one note there to set the record straight, but I don't think I shall participate further. If you want to chat here, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jonathan - I think the discussion will stay centered there, cesspool that it may be, because it's a concern that's been raised about the actions of several people, not just you. There's a good possibility (nearing certainty) that this will end up in the Neelix arbitration case unless there's a good explanation. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you were wrong to denounce me at AN/I without coming here to ask me first. If this is the way I get treated after trying to sort a mess I just won't bother in the future. You know I'm the one who unblocked Johnny? Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please allow me to apologize. I looked into it some more and, as I posted at ANI, I can hardly blame you given the way the situation was presented to you at the time. I can't believe I let myself get drawn into ANI drama; time to go do some work on scheduled monuments. All the best - Kelly ^hi! 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad in any way. You are doing good work and as I look back on what I did it certainly looks like it needs explaining. I should have posted a better explanation at the time. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for lines such as "Be a human instead of a pencil pusher." I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

IAR should be restated. The most important rule on Wikipedia is to be a decent human. If doing so requires making an exception from some other rule, you must. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Check my edit notice :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My Votes in the ArbCom Election 2015

This is a secret vote by default. My votes are not secret. I have voted for the following editors. I doubt that any of them are perfect, but on balance I think they all have something to offer through their possible service on the Committee. If you think I've made any mistakes, please feel free to explain why.

• Timtrent withdrawn
• Casliber
• NE Ent
• Opabinia regalis
• Rich Farmbrough
• Drmies
• Keilana
• Kelapstick
• GorillaWarfare

Thank you for any thoughtful comments. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Could you please re-read the thread, after the bit that SV closed? It was on a completely different topic and we were making decent progress at actually sorting out what could end up as bad blood. I'd appreciate it if you could restore that part of the conversation. Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to restore any parts of that content that don't talk about the banned user by name. I trust you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[We know who] contacts me seven or eight times a year even when I don't respond through off-wiki messages - especially since we apparently have former arbs who didn't realize he was in fact sitebanned, I'm not sure what was too wrong with the discussion, since he is a banned user, and we can't really enforce bans if people don't know who they are. I'd honestly rather just keep the whole conversation off my talk page for now, since I think the issues brought up towards the end of this section probably pose a bigger problem for the current arbcom elections. I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea of an arbcom consisting of a total of six people, which I have the feeling this might end up as.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read recently that he was actually not sitebanned, but only blocked, due to the removal of a ban but no reinstatement. I haven't looked into that claim, and that's why I suggested I hadn't looked into the ban situation. I looked into the history of the case when I first started on the committee, and from my perspective it was mostly overblown - but these things often look overblown from the outside, I haven't seen the volume or the content of the off-wiki messages, so I can't know how bad it is. Worm^TT(talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE 2015

I agree with most of your recent post to the template talk, except for this: "The members were carefully vetted, elected and appointed". I have some very serious doubts as to how well "vetted" those who are elected this year will be. I suspect that many of those responding to the spam they got will actually do much research into who they support. ABF? perhaps. — Ched :  ?  14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the 30 people who showed up at the RFC in 2011, the ArbCom members are carefully vetted and elected. This doesn't prevent bad choices, but at least the ArbCom members have had to answer a bunch of questions, identify themselves, and get at least 50% support from the community. If you apply that standard to the 30 people at the RFC, I think less than 10% would qualify. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In years past I would fully agree - with this years election, I am less confidant. So fair enough. — Ched :  ?  16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Yes. I feel lucky. Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 0k Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 3 Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: C Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 0 Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Look up above on my talk page. I listed them. Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: Jehochman Talk 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

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/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, a workshop. It's been a while since I've seen one of those.  ;-) Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Today

enlightenment

thank you

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Jehochman: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_User:Jehochman.27s_conduct_at_Talk:Jennifer_Lawrence NE Ent 03:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure I need to say anything more. There is sometimes a big value in letting an argument end. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

tag on the Cologne article

I'm sorry but

1) I am not clear on why "it's on the home page" is suppose to be a legitimate reason to remove a valid tag. Because it embarrasses Wikipedia or something? You got a policy you can point to to justify your removals/edit warring? The tag belongs in the article because it highlights a valid concern. And who knows, maybe a reader off the "home page" will see it, help fix the problem highlighted and become a regular Wikipedia contributor.

2) I am also not clear why I'm suppose to "talk to you" before restoring the tag. AFAIK you don't have any kind of special veto power over what goes in the article. I don't have to get your permission before making changes to the article. You are welcome to utilize the talk page like anyone else. You are welcome to discuss any issues, like anyone else. How about you talk to me before removing the tag? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your tag is disputed. Don't restore it unless you first obtain a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works and you should know that. Especially when you haven't even bothered to say anything on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please leave my talk page. You are too unpleasant. It's not worth my time to speak with you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)