Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 20 October 2013

Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently.

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

DYK nomination of Daocheng Yading Airport

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

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

My apologies

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

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

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

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

Thanks much

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

It was a fun quality improvement project.

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

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

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

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)

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

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

Cover blown

My usual low-profile was blown this week:

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

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

Reporting bad editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

Maintenance tags

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

When updating ITN

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Paid editing policy proposal

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

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

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

Paid editing

I've noticed you've been very active in the paid editing policy arena. I mostly like your proposal on how to deal with paid editing/advocacy (the last part I have a problem with, but...). I did notice that your company does work on PR related topics including SEO. I'm sorry if you've addressed this before, but don't you have a COI with respect to this topic? SEO issues have hit Misplaced Pages a number of times and somehow you taking a lead on this issue (and at AN in support of another company) seems like a potential COI. Could you address if you have any relationship with companies that do paid editing or use Misplaced Pages for SEO or if yours does? Again, sorry to bring this up and sorry if you've already addressed this somewhere and I missed it. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)