Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 4 April 2008

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother

Re: your comment there, wasn't sure if you were aware of the thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not too much traffic on the AN thread: pretty much all support for your proposal, but not particularly many responses. Justanother/Alfadog's responses are wearing my patience thin even though I've proposed a lesser remedy (not too wise to alienate the moderates). Do you feel like being bold or taking this to WP:AE? Durova 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. If the situation does not resolve at WP:AN we will not have to wait long before the next incident. The community ban needs to be proposed at the start of the thread while more people are still interested in looking at it. Jehochman 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They've been banned. At some point in the future they could make a case to be reinstated. Jehochman 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Have they? JustaHulk isn't blocked. Durova 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

'Tis now. Jehochman 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish it could've ended better. Time to get back to positive stuff. Best wishes, Durova 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I rather liked Justanother, but they somehow got on the wrong track and just kept going. Oh, well, we tried to help. Jehochman 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother et al

I am removing myself from this situation, including my restrictions, as they were not the core issue. If you wish to seek my input on this in the future, as with what I attempted recently, do not bother.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. This is just a run of the mill waster of time. They need to be shown to the exit because they are not helping, and are generating far too many noticeboard threads with their antics. Jehochman 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Link Spam

This page seems to have links to a few products from small companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Fixed_assets_management

I think they should be deleted since other small companies are not allowed to do this.

Could you edit? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Megalithic geometry

Hi. I am the main contributor of 'Megalithic geometry', which has been subjected to three AfD. The second one was 'keep,' a decision made by Jerry. Today there has been a decision for a third AfD during which ScienceApologist has repeatedly deleted the full article, while Jerry maintained his keep. In the end, Jerry gave up under duress, which I think is sad for Jerry has always considered the topic valid and sourced as it should. I see that ScienceApologist has already been blocked before. Why isn't he blocked again? Is it possible to restore 'Megalithic geometry' again and let people edit it properly as was Jerry's wish?--Little sawyer (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) He has deleted 'Megalithic Yard' as well! A very notable concept. I think he should be blocked forever for he creates a big mess here!

Deletion review is the place to contest deletions. ScienceApologist wasn't an administrator last time I checked, so they can't delete anything. Shopping around for a friendly admin is not a good idea. Jehochman 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to insist. I am not fishing around. You can check, the person in charge of keeping or deleting the article decided to keep it (2nd AfD), and this same person (Jerry) today decided to keep it until he was insulted. And you can check in the 'Megalithic geometry' article history, ScienceApologist deleted the article many times today. Check Megalithic Yard as well, he has just deleted it. I swear, but I don't have to, you can easily check everything I say. So please block this vandalist if you can. Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. I apologize on this one. But you see, I was not lying, he has been deleting full pages all day, against the AfD decision, I don't think it is good either. Sorry for losing my temper, but how can this ScienceApologist be still running around with such an anti-Wiki behaviour?--Little sawyer (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerry deleted it after a deletion review. Everything is in order. Please move along to some other topic. By the way, is this your first account, or have you edited previously under a different account? Jehochman 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check the times. He deleted it several times BEFORE, I swear to God. And what about Megalithic Yard? There was no Deletion review, was there? And yes, I used to be Snicoulaud but I forgot my former password, I have already explained before by the way. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see why you keep doubting my word. I am telling the truth.--Little sawyer (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are unhappy about a deletion, speak to the admin who deleted the article. In this case, User:Jerry. For independent review, go to WP:DRV. Jehochman 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{blpinfo}}

I notice that you added {{blpinfo}} to Bill Gates. I don't know what this is for? The article is already in Category:Living people. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN, a long thread at the bottom, by User:FT2. Jehochman 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Levi Strauss & Co article

Hi, the Levi Strauss & Co article has a number of sections dealing with pending litigation. The language appears to be very pointed, and not NPOV. Can you check it out to see if it should be immediately removed. Thank you Bardcom (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm - this request might have come across as a whine or plea of some sort. I've no personal interest in the article - I was monitoring Recent Changes and it came up. The sections just might be seen as only stating one side of the case, and maybe wikipedia might get sued. But I though I'd ask an admin or someone with no experience, so I pulled your id from the Recent Changes too. If not you, who could take a look? Bardcom (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:NPOVN - the neutral point of view noticeboard. That way you can get more than one point of view. Jehochman 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69

I have a strong gut feeling that this user User:Theonlysun81 is a sock of Hoponpop69. This account has only made two or three edits and are to a page he frequents, and the edits consist of his MO. I realize a gut feeling isn't enough, but could you check it out please? Landon1980 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please file a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU with evidence, please. Jehochman 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can, but do you think there is sufficient evidence to warrant a checkuser? I pretty much know it is him, but proving it is a different story. Landon1980 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Multilingual SEO

This is a new article that an editor linked to from Search engine optimization. I think the article's topic is good, but the article requires some work, because at this point it reads as original research not an encyclopidic article. It lacks internal references. I would like to AfD it, but you know I cannot because of my ban..:) I think if we AfD it, the article will get improved by other editors. I am not really interested in working on the article. I will leave it in your hands as to what to do. Igor Berger (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Water memory

I understand that you are overseeing the probation for homeopathy related pages. SA has removed a substantial chunk of the Water Memory page that has been part of this page for some time and has definitely appeared to have consensus. I do not wish to edit war over this but I do not believe that this is the way WP is supposed to work. The Tutor (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is judged by the strength of arguments, not the number of votes by agenda driven single purpose accounts. If you have a content dispute, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for your options. I looked at what was removed, and it seems like SA may have valid grounds for making that edit. The sources cited do not appear to satisfy WP:RS.Jehochman 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Anglo-America article wanted

I've been thinking about who to ask about this, and since you are a fellow American and Yale graduate, thought of you. This article is incredibly misleading - I'm not sure if it's a joke or what. A big part of the problem is the definition in the Columbia Encyclopedia, "The term “Anglo-America” is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term “Middle America” is used to describe the region including Mexico, the republics of Central America, and the Caribbean." The Britannica gives something similar. Now, is this a new usage of the word that has indeed become popular (although not according to Google) and somehow escaped my dictionaries (I have several good ones, they don't even have the word) or what? As it is, I think the article is bad. But I'm not sure what to do -- ruthlessly edit it, RfD it, or? Is there an appropriate bulletin board to discuss it on? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx and a request for help

Thanx for the heads-up to me for those sockpuppets who follow me around. In addition to various socks following me around, there are some legit editors doing so. I am presently being wrongfully attacked here . I just responded to some of the accusations, but I think that someone else needs to comment here other than me. You are welcome to be critical of me if you feel I deserve it. DanaUllman 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to stop attacks made in bad faith is to not respond. You might take a holiday from homeopathy and work on something completely unrelated, such as SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Jehochman 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have kept and continue to keep a level head here. Because those people who are attacking me are also engaging in various content disputes, this biased interpretation of things is more than a tad skewed. Any reasonable review of the dialogue with which I have been engaged shows that I provide references to research and do my best to provide RS, NPOV, and notable work...this really pisses off some people who don't believe or don't want to believe in homeopathy. Have you considered asking some of the accusers to take a holiday? DanaUllman 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am taking a holiday from that mess myself.  :-) I gave one of them a block warning. Jehochman 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was me, I answered below --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

my comments on other editor

I preserve above comment because it contains diffs that back my statements. To sum it up:

1. I am not a sock, Shoemaker's_Holiday is not a sock.
2. I didn't back my harsh comment on Dana because I thought that it was backed by evidence. It wasn't. I have apologized and striked out statements that I can't back.
3. I think that Dana's behaviour is not correct at all, good faith is exhausted, many editors think the same and comment about it on the incident list page.
4. I already gave Dana a good faith advice to stop posting about the studies, Dana ignored it, Dana brought this upon him for not taking a break. I have a history of making this sort of good faith advices and having patience with editors.
5. new: Dana has also ignored your good faith advice to take a break from homeopathy and is now pushing Linden's study that has also already been shot down repeatedly.

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My intuition is that Dana is a good person. We need to respect different points of view. Dana is probably watching this page, and will perhaps accept my idea that it may be better to work on a less contentious aspect of the article if this one faces too many objections. Everyone working on homeopathy should try to find common ground. Jehochman 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope he sees the wisdom on your idea, since I would say that the studies aspect has faced already too many objections --Enric Naval (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, I do strive for mentsch-ness even when alligators and socks are biting at my feet. I hope that Enric and others understand that you and I have different POVs on homeopathy, but you strive for NPOV in editing and in mediating between editors. I am always open to hearing your feedback when you feel that I step over the line, though please know that sometimes the line moves around even though I may hard to respect it. And thanx for giving me heads-up about situations in which you think that I need to tread carefully. DanaUllman 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

For this. You are my hero. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any surprise?

Any whatosever? Antelan 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel

Hi JEH. Thanks for your recent look at this article, which led to your placement of a COI tag. If memory serves, somone complained about this article at ANI and the submitter was advised that WP:COIN would be a good place to also raise the issue. I didn't find a COIN report, so perhaps this was never done. I notice the WP:SSP report that you mention languishing at the bottom of the queue. Can you give me an opinion as to whether the problems with the article are fixed, and if you see ongoing bad editing? The reason I ask is that soon it will be too late to ask for a checkuser on all the socks, and I'm trying to figure out how far we are from having solved the problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should request checkuser because if it comes back positive, that will go a long way to solving the problem. If not, then we have to deal with it through WP:COIN. The WP:SSP evidence is not conclusive. Jehochman 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The COIN report is at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#American Apparel. Three different American Apparel executives edited the article, and two admitted to it (and mentioned the third). It's absolutely clear that these people also edited the article as anonymous IPs, but not that this was intentional sockpuppeting as opposed to forgetting to log in. The COIN is indisputable, as is the meatpuppeting. The extent of sockpuppetry is unclear. I'm hoping they all just stay away so the issue becomes moot. However, Iris Alonso (Dov Chaney's cohort and right-hand person at the company) vowed at one point to continue as long as the article was unfair to them. She had a point as far as some of the material in the article, and perhaps she was being emotional. Anyway, after I edited the article to be a little better and more balanced she said that's all she was after, and other editors have since tried to remove the taint of COI. One editor, Regicider, has worked hard to improve the article since all these incidents. I'm not sure at what point we can put this all behind us and say we've scrubbed the taint of COI out of the article. It would be nice to do that so we can be satisfied with the article rather than leave the tag on forever. Wikidemo (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the multiple accounts have not been trying to commit any deception, then perhaps we can do without the checkuser. My own quick overview of the article suggested it was neutral. If you don't perceive any ongoing bad edits, perhaps you could add that opinion as a comment on Misplaced Pages:SSP#American_Apparel. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Criticism origional research

FayssalF claims that the entry in criticism was synthesis. You claim it is original research. Yet neither of you provide specific detail as to how your claims are valid. Simply stating a thing does not make it true, it makes it a matter of opinion unless it support by verifiable fact (or at least some supporting reasoning) In the case of both you I would think it a matter of uniformed opinion and perhaps to a certain extent me not being clear enough on my point.

And now to the point.

The criticism is specific to the language use to describe Web 2.0 by using grandiose terms that lead to hyper-inflated expectations of the object being described. THAT is not original research. One need to simply read wikinomics to get a good does of tech-utopianism rhetoric. It is NOT personal opinion that Web 2.0 is hyper-inflated. Simply read the Gartner report that details Web 2.0 heading into the trough of disillusionment. To paraphrase the report, Web 2.0 whatever it is, will not be useful for another two years.

The rhetoric of the technological sublime is neither original or new but is grounded in mass communication theory based on works of Adorno and James Carey; to name a few.

I don't know who the "us" are you refer to but it seems to me absurd you proffer to represent an authority and claim to be the speaker of the ambiguous "us".

However I'm willing to oblige ignorance on a subject matter and provide the specific reference I mentioned. A simple google search would turn up the result. Then again I'm not guilty; you are the accuser and at least according to western practice the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Perhaps you should do your own research to validate your claims of original research, synthesis or whatever wikipedia jargon clap trap the 'us' you represent wishes to throw at the public. Richard D. Chennault (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchennau (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing you added to the article is not at all supported by the source cited. No amount of argumentation can change that. FassalF is not a rogue editor, nor am I. We are both highly experienced and highly trusted members of this community. You might consider that if both of us make the same objection, your position may not be entirely correct. Jehochman 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)