Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 17 July 2007

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

prod Raritan

I am under the impression that Raritan Computer already survived an AfD, though I'm not sure how. If so, then it is ineligible for prod. For this reason alone, I have removed your {{prod}} on the article. Lsi john 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OOPs. I can't imagine how this survived AfD. Would you be willing to nominate it a second time. This article needs to go away. Jehochman 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually frustrated with the editors there. A quick google search yields multiple references to Raritan Computing. However, the article was written by a company exec without sourcing about a year ago.

I became involved during a 3O request, and strongly encouraged them to obtain some secondary sourcing. Several editors (and admins) have slowly been removing unsourced statements, (i believe) in the hopes of encouraging them to find some sourcing. It's not an article I wish to 'flesh out' and I'm not sure that any of those google sources are more than advertising mentions in 'sales copy' snips.

At this point, I'm unconvinced that anyone will bother to add sourcing, so yes, an AfD is probably appropriate. As for me nominating it.. well.. that'd be something new for me to learn, I suppose. ;)

Lsi john 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD process is a bit of a bother, but they have step by step instructions that are very easy to follow. AfD is a good solution. Either somebody will step forward and turn this into a real article (which hasn't happened since the first AfD last year), or else the article goes bye-bye. Jehochman 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted a bit more of the unsourced information. This is an example of some sourcing that could be used. It doesn't appear to be a small insignificant company. There just doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to write a promo piece on this company with reliable sourcing. (And promo is what it would really be, imo). I'm torn, it could be a legitimate article, but it isn't right now, and doesn't look like it ever will be. Lsi john 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We really need to find news sources. For example, Mahalo.com was recently listed on the main page in the Did You Know section, so it is possible to write a good corporate article, but not about every corporation. Size isn't the most important factor. If they are just running along, doing the same old thing, and nobody is covering them, we don't have anything to write about. Jehochman 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Akc9000

Please note this. More spam on the way? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be a lot of trouble. I've asked the other admin to speak with you. Jehochman 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but I'd hold off on calling this a wheel war. Eagle101 was responding to an unblock request, and it's not necessary to discuss with the blocking admin in that situation (although it's almost always a very good idea). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've responded on my talk page. If you have further questions feel free to ask. In short I think he deserves the chance to pick himself up. If he returns to the behaviour I would suggest a week long block, and if he returns with the same behaviour then entertain an indef block. Akhilleus, I think I left you a message on your talk... if I did not feel free to slap me. —— Eagle101 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did leave a message here. —— Eagle101 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied again. —— Eagle101 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied again :) —— Eagle101 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am watching your page, and by the way, I appreciate your help in all this. Jehochman 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Digwuren 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I didn't delete anything on purpose. That was an edit conflict. I was copying my responses from the lower box to the upper box. Jehochman 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is understandable. Please be more careful in the future. Digwuren 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks and IP addresses

Just a heads up: we don't do indef blocks of IP addresses because IP addresses tend to change hands. The longest I've ever blocked a static IP address is one year - it had posted a suicide note, then when it returned to vandalize more pages after I'd contacted the Pennsylvania state police I imposed that block. More normal is a few days, weeks, or perhaps months. I've put 72 hours on the IP you suggested. If the problems resume after that block expires I'll bump it right up to three months. Durova 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do change hands. I'll try to cut back on the caffeine and adrenaline. :-D Jehochman 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U on Petri Krohn

I notice you have endorsed a view in the RFC. I recognise most of the other names, and know these users' histories and positions regarding the situation; however, you and BScar23625 are new.

Please, what is your connection to the affair? Digwuren 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No connection whatsoever. I just noticed the post on WP:ANI. I'm also a wikisleuth, and I've helped ban a number of disruptive editors from Misplaced Pages. The case you've filed is overly long and doesn't serve your interests. I recommend you spend some time at WP:COIN. We need all the help we can get, and you'll learn a lot about how to conduct investigations. Ultimately, you want to file a case with a small number of the very best diffs that directly prove your point. The shorter and simpler your case, the more likely you are to succeed. Jehochman 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of 'minimum amount of data for maximum effect' works well when well-localisable problems are at issue, which appears to be the case in a typical conflict of interest situation. However, this case is about long-term patterns, and it can not be illustrated by any small set of singular diffs, no matter how well-chosen. Digwuren 12:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at WP:CSN#User:Bus stop you can see an example of how to handle such a situation. The RFC/U seems to be over, but if you have further problems, try to focus your complaint for better results. If you can't focus the complaint, that may indicate that you should hold off until there is a stronger case. Jehochman 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

conflict of interest

Can you investigate http://en.wikipedia.org/Steve_Marchand for conflict of interest, especially in the public service section? The tone of the article is not disinterested. Also, there are no citations. thanks--Donatello08 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Katrina Swett

Thanks for your help with this one. Bearian 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

you deleted my request

You have my request. I will not communicate with you further about this issue.

In good faith I explained to Durova partly why this is personal. I will not go into it any further than I already have and I will not accept personal attacks or harassment.

In all honesty, I don't care what you went through. Your situataion is not mine.

If you continue to harass me in this manner I will leave wikipedia. Lsi john 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I've tried to work with you, but you keep using words like "personal attack", "defamation" and "harassment" to deflect scrutiny of your actions. When you enter into highly contentious situations, such as noticeboard discussions, you must understand that your edit history will be scrutinized and criticized. Jehochman 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to scrutinize my edit history. You are not welcome to speculate on my motives, my offline activities, or to mis-represent my edit history. You are welcome to say that you believe I look guilty, as that is simply bad faith on your part. You are not welcome to say that I am guilty of anything unless you have proof of the claim, as that would be an unfounded personal attack.

As you have demonstrated bad faith and do not acknowledge that your actions were wrong, I have nothing further to say to you. This is my last communication with you. Lsi john 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Peace be with you.Jehochman 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I lose any footwear?

Please don't take the question as a smart ass rhetorical jab. It's intended to be a friendly did you mean me? Anynobody 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no risk of that because I don't understand what you mean. Jehochman 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary: 04:20, 25 June 2007 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) (186,508 bytes) (no throwing shoes)...from Durova's talk page diff. Anynobody 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is your name John, too? I was addressing Lsi John. Notice that my comment is at the same indent level as yours. I was responding to the comment above, not you. Jehochman 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

re User:Lsi john and recent events

I regret that I had not come across this earlier, when I may have been able to provide some useful input. Lsi john is one of the most civil, polite and helpful editors I have encountered here in WP. He has chosen to identify himself as a Christian, and to edit according to those principles as they relate to WP policy, rules and guidelines. I would suggest that, until very recently, he comported himself to those standards exemplarily.

As you have noted, he is fairly new in the WP environment. As such he is not always familiar with the conventions of language used here. It can sometimes be difficult to match the appropriate phrases with the desire to communicate the feelings and points one wants to make, and it is sometimes very easy to misunderstand what is being meant. Lsi john used phrases and terms that are common outside of WP but which, because of the application of WP:CIVIL, carry a far greater import here. I feel that in attempting to speak his mind and convey the depth of his feelings in various matters that he may have transgressed some boundaries of what may be deemed polite.

Some of the comments previously made about and in respect of Lsi john have not, in my opinion, reflected well upon the individuals concerned. In defending one or two participants of a debate, they being both a minority and also adherents of the article subject, it was (strongly) inferred that Lsi johns actions were tainted by association and ulterior motives. From what I know of Lsi john I believe that he would have been deeply offended by the suggestion that his motives could be questioned; he was doing what he believed correct according to his principles.

I understand why Lsi john has been reprimanded requested to moderate his use of certain phrases. He may have been considered to have violated WP's policies and guidelines. That he was not receiving the assumption of good faith that WP also requires of all editors, that his motives for rather than the context of his arguments were questioned, and his possible relationship with those whose cause he decided to assist, is no excuse for the actions he took and for which he has been admonishedasked to temper. However, I would like it recorded that I feel it is unfortunate that a good and conscientious person has persuaded himself that he needs to step away from contributing from WP for a while resulting from the pressure he perceived himself under for having acted according to his beliefs.

Lastly, I would point out that I do not share Lsi johns faith (whatever it is), or that of the Church of Scientology, or any Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, pagan, etc. belief system or other form of superstition. I simply felt I had to do what Lsi john had originally done and get myself involved in helping as far as I am able. It is simply a record of how I feel about the matter. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that Lsi john has been reprimanded. This is news to me. I've asked him to be more civil, several times in various ways. He's been interceding in a variety of heated situations. Unfortunately, this has led to miunderstandings. I am sorry if he feels stress, and hope that in time, a common understanding will develop. Jehochman 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, he has not been reprimanded (that is, officially) nor admonished so I have struck those terms and substituted the underline text. Again (and this is not WP:POINT, just a happy coincidence) this indicates how nuances of what may be said or implied in another place becomes a more serious concern here. I was addressing a couple of your very civil rebukes (informal notification of non-adherence to policy/guidelines with suggestions on more appropriate terminology) in your correspondence with Lsi john. I hope this clarifies my words.

He does go into contentious areas, I acknowledge. One such is where he and I met (we were on the same side of the debate). I recognise the inherent challenges, and am prepared to take the consequences, in a manner which I am uncertain that Lsi john does. Perhaps his faith in what is right does not allow him to make such judgements? I hope he returns refreshed from his break, and continues to contribute as he feels appropriate (but with a better understanding of the use of appropriate language). Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

RS

It's completely discredited, and if you read it, it doesn't actually say anything. The policies on sources are V and NOR. We tried to develop a new summary at WP:ATT, and it was policy for a few weeks, but it was overturned, and so we're back to relying on V and NOR. SlimVirgin 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "shameful"; just discredited, which it is. It has always been controversial because it was chopped around too much, was badly written, and it often contradicted other policies and even itself. SlimVirgin 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

feedback

Hi Johochman - thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I'm posting to the wrong place, I'm just trying to work it all out - new to Wik and not so internet savvy. I just wanted to say that I think the way the article on Online advertising is written could be cleaned up - It's just not well written. For a start, Online and Advertising should both have caps etc. Could I have a go at rewriting some of the text? I won't put any new links in. I'm just starting to understand the link thing as well, so I may have added a link to my site which is where the article was posted and that may not have been the best link - perhaps the link should have been to the source of the information which was from an ad agency that does stats etc, that's where I got my info from for the article I wrote. The last figures quoted on that page about Online Advertising were from 2006, recently stats came out (2007)showing a significant movement away from print, tv and radio advertising and towards advertsisng online, and this info may be of use to someone doing some research on advertising.

figuring it out slowly... Rebecca

Of course you are free to edit. Make sure to cite reliable sources. I'll watch your edits and try to help you along. Jehochman 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

This happens from time to time when you do investigations. I've done my best to seek alternatives but this seems to be the only solution for this dilemma.

Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#COFS. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. Durova 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Second time for me, no problem. Jehochman 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Lsi john involving self in a dispute...making it worse

Any suggestions you have or input you can make would be good. Lsi john seems to be involving himself in a dispute (Mediation is involved, there have been several ANI's etc) and isn't beening helpful. I see he has a history of involving himself in such disputes in an unhelpful way...I wonder if you could act? See this, for example, ]. or this ]

SamDavidson 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, you might notice that one of those is on an admin's page, and the same admin is involved in the other conversation. And jehochman is not an admin. Would you be kind enough to explain how I'm making anything worse? And, also, why the admin has not suggested that I'm making anything worse? Peace.Lsi john 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See, Lsijohn is making it even worse!!! Also see diff ] to see an example of how he is inflaming this situation and making his own false accusations, which he knows are not true. SamDavidson 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, taking a single diff like that, completely out of context, probably wont be very helpful for you. Most people who work the noticeboards are sharper than that and they'll read the entire context of the conversation and not 'assume' something based on a single snippet. The fact is, I made no accusations there. The fact that you seem to see one, is a bit peculiar. The fact that you think I know something to be true or untrue is also odd. Exactly what do you think I'm accusing, and what is it that I know? Peace.Lsi john 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, now that I think about it, I welcome your input here too. I've been following this particular situation for quite some time now. It's fairly complex and would take hours to read all the background, but I'm open to your feedback on my comments. I'll trust your AGF read. let me know. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson, I am not the designated minder for any particular editor. If you have a problem, please work through normal channels. John, I may look into this since both sides seem to welcome my involvement. Jehochman 00:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have no preference either way. But I'm always open to feedback and insight. My remarks have been about as neutral as they can be. I've chastened people on both sides of the dispute, and I've made suggestions to people on both sides of the dispute. It's been a long, drawn out, and not pretty situation. Though here I'm less involved than with our current co-involvement. I'll tell you more about Sam once you have an opportunity to go through both posts. Peace.Lsi john 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read the user RfC on DPeterson too. Peace.Lsi john 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

John, why don't you sign up as an admin trainee with an administrator who specializes in mediation? I am a big fan of training. You can get free coaching here, and develop (or improve) your expertise. Misplaced Pages skills transfer over into real life. Jehochman 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do. :) Peace.Lsi john 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, Since Sam doesn't feel that I'm being fair or helpful, perhaps you'd like to work with them and help resolve this situation. Peace.Lsi john 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My inclination is to refer it to WP:COIN. Informal mediation doesn't seem possible because one or more sides don't want to volley. The issue is whether or not that user is Becker or looks so much like Becker that it casts the article's neutrality in doubt. The patrollers at COIN know how to properly ask for a checkuser, so I think they will get to the bottom of it in short order. Jehochman 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there seem to have been at least two, maybe three, CheckUser inquiries into the accusatios of DPeterson, Dr. Becker-Weidman, and others being sockpuppets and each time there was a finding, so to speak, of this being unfounded. See:

]

]

the only conflict of interest I see is that both Mercer and Sarner are leasder of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy and have published a book on Attachment Therapy that pushes the POV of their group. They have a financial interest in this issue and the conflict...careers, etc. SamDavidson 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Those connections probably aren't strong enough to be considered COI. Experts are allowed to edit in their field, and experts usually have strong opinions. There could be an issue of POV pushing, but that's something different from COI. Jehochman 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are aware, but if not, these editors ended up in arbitration here (unrelated to me). Peace.Lsi john 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus

Hiya, and yes, I agree on the logo. But I figured it would be nice to ask, and see if I could get a cc-by-sa 2.5 license to put an image in the Commons.  :) As for dr_sears (talk · contribs), no, I never got a reply. --Elonka 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should report him as a COI editor, or as an impersonator, or both? The real Dr. Sears seems to be a spokesperson for Juice Plus. Jehochman 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We talked about it a bit on the JP talkpage. My own opinion is that he's a very low traffic editor (only a handful of edits in 2007), and that he's not actually edit-warring on any article, he's just popping up on the talkpage, which I think is perfectly legitimate as long as he's been clearly identified as being questionable (which he has). Also, be sure to check the talkpage of CHT9 (talk · contribs), since I had specifically asked her to participate at the RfC. It's probably worth noting their edits on the RfC as {{spa}} accounts though. The question is, should we also mark Rhode Island Red as such? :) --Elonka 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, RIR's editing pattern is very odd, but we have all types here. The real problem for NSA is that their own websites and branding are all screwed up, so this Misplaced Pages article has more prominence in the search results than it should. If they fix their website(s), monitor this article, and report any nonsense to WP:COIN, that would probably solve their immediate business problem. Did he drive off Julia Havey? She seems to have quit out of frustration. That's bad. Jehochman 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I had my IM client turned off because I am on vacation. Try again at my AIM address. Jehochman 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the recent RFC comments by Dr sears, I think it's very likely that this is a sock puppet set up to do a Joe Job on Juice Plus. Have you checked that yet? Jehochman 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We can probably talk faster via IMs... Did you get my ping? --Elonka 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I just emailed you my AIM handle. Jehochman 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Estoy hablando :-) Congrats, and good luck on the main page. I've sworn off of helping vandalfight on the main page, as it frustrates me too much. Have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support. Peace.Lsi john 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I am glad things seem to be working out. Jehochman 03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User award

Many before you have ventured guesses because they assumed some credo prejudiced my decisions in site conflicts and the contradictory patchwork has been an occasional source of chuckles. You know what it actually is, and if I continue to act as a neutral Wikipedian may the edit warriors make many more off target accusations. Cheers, Durova 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Jehochman 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

seo fa category

Hi Jonathan, I noticed that the article to search engine optimization on the featured articles page is categorized under Computers and video games. I suggested that it would be for appropriate to list it under Business, economics and finance, but another editor did not agree with it. What do you think? See my comment here. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#FA_for_Search_Engine_Optimization_in_wrong_Category --roy<sac> .oOo. 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cancer and cancer bacteria

Hi. Thanks for participating in the straw poll. There, you commented:

To begine, information from reliable sources should be added to the existing article. The article may end up supporting, or denouncing the hypothesis, depending on what the available sources say. If the article becomes sufficiently long, this topic can be broken out into a separate article. Please be careful not to create a POV fork.

Talk:Cancer already has a lot of information from reliable sources, that some editors of cancer have refused to allow the contributor to put in the article. Hence the proposal for a separate page. The topic is complicated and clearly the article will be long; it would be a long tangent for most readers of cancer. Including me. My interest is in germ cell tumors. --Una Smith 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You propose to create a POV fork, which is the wrong approach. Add the information to the existing article. If you cannot reach an agreement with the other editor, use one of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution services. You need to deal with the disagreement. Jehochman 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not propose a POV fork; I propose to move the entire topic from cancer to cancer bacteria. --Una Smith 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a POV fork, in my opinion. Take a look at WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Jehochman 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments regarding my post to the RIR RfC. It took quite a while to sort through the RfC and weed out much of the *bs*.

However, I'm concerned about Durova's post. It is another 'suggestive' post that seems to not be entirely based on good faith. The editor stated clearly - 100% no present or past involvment. I think it is out of line for Durova to then 'insist' on an explanation, based solely on an IP and the location of the ISP and refer to a short commute. (This 'request for an explanation' is essentially calling RIR a liar, which is the same type of thing she did to me).

RIR never said s/he had no knowledge of the company. Nor did RIR say s/he had no personal opinion of the company. Durova's post very clearly 'implies' that RIR is lying, and I'm not comfortable with those types of posts.

Peace.Lsi john 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Evidence page comments that were moved to the talk page

I am not aware of any policy or rule that prohibits me from moving wrongfully located comments from the evidence to the talk page. I have no intention of reverting that. --Fahrenheit451 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Suggestions

Hi and thanks again for your suggestions regarding articles to work on outside the Juice Plus realm. I have already made edits to several articles that I found listed here . It's a nice break and it has been refreshingly free of controversy. I also followed up on your suggestion to review some of the good article candidates. It's going to take me a little bit of time to get up to speed on what constitutes a good article, but while I am learning the ropes, I will continue to pick away at the articles listed as needing attention. Thanks once again for your constructive comments. Rhode Island Red 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your copy-edit of Sheerness during its FAC. Epbr123 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A mere two minutes

Providently enough, I have a couple of minutes. Feel free to email me directly. Gwernol 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

On Durova's talk page you summed up the point I was trying to make. I'm not offended or anything but just wanted to get some feedback:

I think all further discussions belong at the case pages. If you have something good to say, make it available to all of us where we will see it. Jehochman 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bothering Durova about the arbcom is pointless since the case is already open. Was I being unclear, or did you just want to make sure the message got across? Anynobody 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify; I'm not looking to fight or anything like that, you appear to be a neutral editor, so I'm asking for your feedback.

I'd also still like to know if this was meant to include me. If it was, again I'm not looking to fight or argue but for more information. Anynobody 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take all comments and questions about this case to the arbitration forum. Thank you. Jehochman 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See above for the answer to your specific question. Jehochman 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What the..?

This very surprising edit of yours just jumped up on my watchlist. "Disruption"? What are you talking about? How is the acknowledged alternative account User:JustaHulk disruptive, or trolling, or any kind of appropriate arbitration evidence? There are only a few contributions, did you click on any of them? Or look at its explanatory userpage? Did you notice the unblock reason the next day? You think that extremely pacifistic, rather sad sock is disruptive, take a look at mine (and I assure you the ArbCom know mine, and fear her). Seriously... As Justanother mentioned in his unblock request, the JustaHulk account literally never edited any other page than its own and Bishzilla's. In fact, I suspect it was my own creation of that playful alternative identity, which nobody has thought to block yet, even though it has been disrupting all over the wiki for months (down, Bishzilla!) that inspired his JustaHulk. That Smee then chose to go to User talk:JustaHulk and try (unsuccessfully) to stir him up hardly seems a good reason for Jersey Devil to block JustaHulk. Hmmm... I suspect Bishzilla is on her way over to have a little chat with Jersey Devil... Oh, no... RUN, JD ! Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

JustaHulk

Is it really appropriate to characterize this activity as trolling? Looks like meaningless chatter to me: WP:NOT stuff, but still an acknowledged account with very few edits. I identified the Justanother talk page banter only because it overlapped with the community ban discussion. The timing establishes circumstantial evidence that they supported each other's positions out of cameraderie rather than on the merits of the case and that they endeavored at concealment. Trolling is a strong word. Would you consider refactoring? Durova 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)