| Revision as of 07:37, 11 November 2007 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,782 edits →Arbitration: In answer to your earlier question, no, 24.19.33.82 is not me. If the signature at the end is not "El C", then it is not me← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:45, 11 November 2007 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,275 edits →Arbitration: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| ::::Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. ] 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ::::Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. ] 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::In answer to your earlier , no, ] is not me. If the signature at the end is not "El C", then it is not me. ] 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | :::::In answer to your earlier , no, ] is not me. If the signature at the end is not "El C", then it is not me. ] 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Yeah, it was possibly Greg Kohs. He and I play cat and mouse sometimes. - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd like to enjoy the benefit of your experience, thank you. The presentation by Arcayne was quite a mess, you are right. As you can see, I didn't believe him at first, but eventually I saw that there was a case, which I corroborated through independent means, before making any claims. Your point that the incident was stale was a tenable objection, which is why I backed down rather than putting together a cleaner presentation. I am not challenging anything at this stage. I will strike the comment you find offensive if you like. After I agreed with you, I felt very upset that you were admonishing me. Would you be willing to strike that? I am sorry we had this misunderstanding, but I feel that we can sort it out. If you have any other questions, please ask. - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:45, 11 November 2007
Leave a new message. Extra credit for politeness. Archives |
|---|
|
We need your help BADLY
Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You were such a great help last time with the Toto page, I trust you 100% with these situations.
Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm heading out the door. Please take this to editor assistance for quick action. - Jehochman 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, Gracious!
I certainly hope that your faith in Lin Shukun does not turn out to be misplaced.Kww 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- If it is, there is no harm done in being nice. You see how I was nice to Sadi Carnot twice before. Watch how the case resolves. - Jehochman 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sri Lanka related
See here and here. Is this acceptable ? Thanks Taprobanus 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've issued a warning. Hopefully the editor will adjust. - Jehochman 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks we are progressing towards total peace and quiet for a change in these articles. Thanks againTaprobanus —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Establishing Notability/COI issues for article
Hello; I'm trying to clean up COI issues and establish notability for Road_&_Travel_Magazine. I left a note on the discussion page citing a source about 10 days ago, but I'm not sure how to proceed next, as there's been no response. Thanks very much for any tips. Erikd7 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- You could post a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask for help. That should work. - Jehochman 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you; I will do that. Erikd7 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright violation?
Good morning Jehochman - I hope I can ask a favor of you. I came across this image today, and it seems to me to be a violation of copyright, or at least, a misrepresentation of who the owner of the copyright actually is. It's virtually the same as this well-established image, just with a bit of color and the Chinese characters edited out. I have to confess that I'm not very familiar with the procedures for questioning the copyright of an image, and my brief search for answers didn't yield much fruit. Would you mind having a look, and take whatever action you think necessary? And, if you'd be so kind, could you point me in the right direction of the proper procedures for this sort of thing, so I don't have to bug you in the future? Many thanks Folic_Acid | talk 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is what I did, and you can do the same:
{{copyvio|http://www.nndb.com/people/974/000086716/cks-sm.jpg}}Best regards, - Jehochman 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Outstanding - I'll tuck that under my hat. Cheers Folic_Acid | talk 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Technical point
We need to renumber the Proposed findings of Fact, because there are two number 14s. Could you protect the workshop page for a couple of minutes and do this before the problem gets any greater? Thanks in advance. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to run to a meeting. The clerks will take care of this, or you can do it yourself if you like. In spite of the robust debate, I would still like to be your friend, and am happy to settle this case by a mutual statement of principles if you like, and I am willing to strike any negative comments I've made if you would do the same. - Jehochman 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Re this edit: LOL! thanks for taking care of this. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - Jehochman 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Another violation in SL realted articles
Violation of 1RR 1st,2nd, 3rd and violation of WP:NPA calls in the edit summary
Continuing discussions
You may not be aware of further discussions here and here. As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm only involved a little bit, and there seems to be a crowd already. - Jehochman 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your last edits
You wiped mine and Durova's comments under "Phsychim62 refused to abide by the consensus". You wiped yours, too. I restored mine and Durova's, but if yours was an accident, you might want to put it back as well.Kww 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.- Jehochman 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
Hello Jehochman, how are you? I leave this message because of your "faith in the system", and because I have recently opened a policy RFC. I share your faith in the wikiprocess and value your opinions. Peace and good days! Can I be Frank? 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hey Jehochman. First, I would like to thank you for your help with the Sri Lankan issues. Your work is much appreciated. Can you also comment on the following issue here please. Thanks Watchdogb 07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Nipping SixString in the bud
Thanks for catching MindGuerilla. As you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of experience with sock-puppets, and what instilled my zero-tolerance attitude was good ol' SixString there. You didn't happen to catch the IP there, did you? Again, I appreciate you acting quickly. - Arcayne () 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
RFC Talk: Wheel war
Template:ExampleRFCxxx DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
extra note - look at the signature, did you use 4 tildes or 5? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Dearest Jehochman,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
TyrusThomas4lyf
Any chance you could reinstate the block regarding Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TyrusThomas4lyf? The sock-puppet activity has resumed unabated. Thanks. Myasuda 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
Hi. Regretfully, I'm no longer confident in your judgment as a sysop. Both myself and Dmcdevit have repeatedly requested for your to provide us with a concrete grounds for the block (diffs of recent misconduct). Will you be willing to, as a last resort, do so? Or is a formal investigation by the arbitration committee the only recourse to compel you? Please let me know. Thanks in advance. El_C 07:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to talk with you about this. You can IM me right now. Send email for an invite. - Jehochman 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I would prefer a public conversation. Is that possible? El_C 07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. What do you need to know? Let me ask one first. I agreed to the unblock which was what you wanted. Don't you feel like I should get some credit for being agreeable? - Jehochman 07:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. El_C 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your earlier question, no, 24.19.33.82 is not me. If the signature at the end is not "El C", then it is not me. El_C 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was possibly Greg Kohs. He and I play cat and mouse sometimes. - Jehochman 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to enjoy the benefit of your experience, thank you. The presentation by Arcayne was quite a mess, you are right. As you can see, I didn't believe him at first, but eventually I saw that there was a case, which I corroborated through independent means, before making any claims. Your point that the incident was stale was a tenable objection, which is why I backed down rather than putting together a cleaner presentation. I am not challenging anything at this stage. I will strike the comment you find offensive if you like. After I agreed with you, I felt very upset that you were admonishing me. Would you be willing to strike that? I am sorry we had this misunderstanding, but I feel that we can sort it out. If you have any other questions, please ask. - Jehochman 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your earlier question, no, 24.19.33.82 is not me. If the signature at the end is not "El C", then it is not me. El_C 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you should get credit for that. Nonetheless, do you really not see a problem with punitive blocks? Throughout the day, I have asked you to submit anything concrete, immediate, recent, abusive, etc. as grounds for the block, but I felt that instead, you have been markedly evasive. You continued to link to subpages, which may or may not contianed said evidence rather than straightforwardly produce the evidence itself. It was not, in fact, until Dmcdevit "sanity" exasperation that you ceased from this subpage linking and move to bring something more direct, which nonetheless was not up to par. Now with your desired measures against Dreamguy rejected in the clarification request, you still challenge that my account is factually incorrect? I am already shaken by how offensive your conduct has been thus far (unlike Dmcdevit, who only found it "a bit offensive," I found it rather outrageous)). I would think that you would wish to enjoy from the benefit of out experience, which I do not wish to flaunt, but we each have blocked thousands of users throughout the course of years without much incidence. El_C 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)