Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 8 March 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.

lol

Tosses you a spangenhelm. Durova 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dons the helm and rides off. Jehochman 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot your lance. Durova 02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What lance? He needs a ray gun..:) The socks are like mushrooms after the rain. Igor Berger (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks at the ray gun in disgust. How uncivilized. Chooses lightsaber instead. Jehochman 14:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Youonlylivetwice#Reasons for unblock

I hate to come by and ruin any good mood you have, but YOLT has requested an unblock. I have already declined the unblock, although with it he had seven points (in the section linked to above) where he's protesting his innocence. While I have rebutted most of them, I cannot answer his fifth concern (with regards to your third conclusion on the SPP case) as I am unfamiliar with the original dispute and Mudaliar; I was wondering if you could explain? -Jéské 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

talk:quantum cryptography

Hello Jehochman, I appreciate you helping me in the past, and I come to you requesting a little bit more. I recently reverted an edit by a user (page: quantum cryptography) because I consider it to be dubious and away from the mainstream. He claims there are valid 'man-in-the-middle' attacks for a quantum cryptographic system, and deleted a large section of article devoted to explaining why they are not possible. You can read the talk page, as I explained to him why his edit doesn't belong, and then he reverted my edit. So rather than get into an "undo" war, I would like to divert this to an administrator for arbitration. Thank you. --MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need is mediation, not arbitration, or perhaps third opinion. Can you show some "diffs" where the editor is deleting material? Whatever you do, don't battle with them. Let them have their way, temporarily, and we'll get it sorted out. Jehochman 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I was unclear about the terms. Here is a diff of his deletions, and here is a link to the diff of 2 changes that I made: first reverting his deletion, then I deleted the last paragraph of the section because it is an unreasonable method to break a quantum encryption protocol, for reasons I specified in the talk section.

Also, I'm not very good at making links, as you can probably tell. How would i make an internal link to that diff page?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact User:Elonka and ask her to read the article. She is Elonka Dunin. Jehochman 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, I'm not real impressed with Misplaced Pages's mediation policy. It's been a week since i raised this issue and since then the article has been edited a bunch of times despite the erroneous change that I dispute. I am better off, it seems, to just get into an edit war with someone rather than come to an admin for a thid opinion. Is this what all mediation is like?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Have you tried WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? I am not a mediation specialist. Jehochman 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/22holberg

Hi, I'm coming to you because you closed the last one I opened - it has been confirmed at the related checkuser request that these are indeed sockpuppets - what happens now? -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser clerks will block them. Jehochman 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Jehochman an anon IP tried Spamming Search engine optimization with their promotional links, but the text was good and relevent to the article. I removed the Spam links and created a new section SEO techniques. Search_engine_optimization#SEO_techniques Still citation needed. I do not know if you like it but it does look good. Please take a look. If you like it we can keep it or if you do not agree with it just remove the section and the text. Igor Berger (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay but we may want to work that section in later on with reference to PageRank. It does look appropriate for the article topic. Igor Berger (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disregard! PageRank already in the article. Igor Berger (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot action on Rue

A bot has removed your protection template here. You may wish to reinstate a new one unless the protection is no longer warranted. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I fail to understand. When Ronnotel can follow a single point agenda on Misplaced Pages to get me banned - why can't I respond? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can respond, but you can't do unto him exactly as he does unto you, because Misplaced Pages isn't the Old Testament. If his accusations are false, explain why. Don't turn around and make you own false accusations against him. Jehochman 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Absidy et al.

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Either the editor will behave or they will give us definitive proof that they need to be banned. Jehochman 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Randy B

You are either a truly lovely man or are choosing to protect an editor that shouldn't be protected. You chose to delete my comment to him in which I expressed concern that he mis-quoted me; in other words, he put into quotes a statement in which he said that I made (but didn't). I personally do not think that such editors should be protected. Other people should see that he seemingly showing bad faith on wikipedia. Then, another editor chose to defend Randy B by saying that I was "baiting" him. "Baiting" does not mean expressing concern about making quotes up out of thin air. My concern was real, and yet, for unknown reasons, you and other editors are protecting/defending an editor that perhaps should not be protected or defended...or worse, perhaps you are choosing to be complicate in these shenanigans. I want to AGF. Please tell me why I should. DanaUllman 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should not look at Misplaced Pages as a battleground where ideas clash and various editors struggle for the primacy of their beliefs. That is not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. Jehochman 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, unfortunately Misplaced Pages is becoming a battle ground. As you can see in this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless. If it is a WP:DUCK it is a duck and we should not WP:HORSE it but try to deal with the problem before it escalates itself beyond control. And this is not just a few editors' POV but the whole Internet community sees us in such light. Igor Berger (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman...first, I have not told you yet, but you're one of the few people here who is transparent...and I have a great respect for those fellow editors who are transparent. I feel much more comfortable disagreeing (or agreeing) with a real person than an anonymous person. To clarify my intentions, I am not interested in the "primacy of beliefs." I am academically-oriented, and I'm interested in helping to create NPOV info on specific subjects that shows various viewpoints and that is notable and reliable. I do not want just "positive" info, but of the "negative" or skeptical info, it should be accurate and notable. What doesn't work is when editors are not honest and when other editors defend or protect them. Please give me a reason that I should not undo your deleting of the real and serious concerns that I expressed to Randy B. If you need to tell me something privately, please email me. DanaUllman 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate Homeopathy as a featured article candidate and use the feedback from that process to improve the article. Once an article reaches FA status, it is much harder for drive-by POV pushers to damage the article. Jehochman 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Your posts to my user talk were a little confusing at first. Then I realized you might have thought it was a surprise. If you like, tell Danny I can bring in Virgil Griffith too. Durova 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you hadn't mentioned it before. Could you ask Virgil if he would license the Wikiscanner code? I could arrange hosting and constant maintenance. The database hasn't been updated since August. Keeping the thing running and paying for hosting is a non-trivial challenge, but I think I see a way to do it. Jehochman 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Help! Vietnam War article

Hi Jehochman, I'm concerned about the user CompScientist's recent edits to the Vietnam War page - please have a look. Thank you! twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Jehochman, can you please take a look at a short essay that I have written about this topic User:Igorberger/Conflict of interest. I know we talked about this at lengh at AN when the issue was brought up by one editor about 3 months ago, but it keeps creeping back to us. Should we not have some sort of official policy or guidelines to avoid any problems or false accusations that may develop because of the misperseption of what constitutes WP:COI. There are many consultants, lawyers and other professional editors on Misplaced Pages. Do we just go on a witch hunt and start hanging all of them? This could be a serious problem unless we define some guiddelines as to what is permisable by the community and what is not. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:COI and Misplaced Pages:Business' FAQ and User:Durova/The dark side and Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization. Jehochman 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the article links. I am glad we have precedence in this matter, and we do not chase professional people away. Spending countless hours on Misplaced Pages editing just to sell a Misplaced Pages articles is not even a financially viable opportunity. One would make much more money doing other work! One must really love Misplaced Pages to keep staying around, dealing with all this wikidrama, and keep building it for everyone to learn from and enjoy. Thank you, 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)

Hello

You have put a completely incorrect interpretation of the RfCU on the article probation page. Unprovoked/RDOlivaw/DrEightyEight are one user, that's old old news. There was no connection made between this user and MC or The Tutor, nor was a connection proven between MC and The Tutor. MC is being vanished, per his own request. The Tutor is not blocked. You should correct this ASAP. —Whig (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. MC was not proven to be TT. The connection has been denied. AGF, and please strike this nonsense. —Whig (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting warmer, but you're still in the wrong. Repeating accusations like that is not helpful. —Whig (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think you are doing the wrong thing here. I wish you would remove your statement until you can ascertain the facts. You are not making a false statement now, but you are imputing bad faith to a real person and to a new editor when no accusations of abusing sock puppet accounts has been proven. I ask you again to strike it or we should seek some kind of dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted to WP:AN. —Whig (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you do not seem to respect the ArbCom's handling of the prior matter in which you were careless and caused problems, I am hopeful that it will not be necessary for us to return to that forum. I believe this is a serious matter which should be escalated as quickly as necessary to prevent the loss of a valuable new contributor. —Whig (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User Jupiter Optimus Maximus

Just on a hunch, I wonder if you might check out User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk). He appeared in late February, 2008, about the time Illustrious One was blocked, and shares many characteristics, including a fascination with categories. I'm not entirely convinced they're the same, but the stars are starting to align. Elphion (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously a sock. I think you need to gather a few diffs and file a request at WP:RFCU. Jehochman 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

MC

Thanks, I got distracted by the WP:RTV issue, the block is now in place. Dreadstar † 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCommonSense

I invite you to add ] on your user page because you are one of the WikiCommonSense editors. If many editors edit in such matter we will be more productive and worry less about vandalism and other disruptive issues at Misplaced Pages. Igor Berger (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeh akuse

I just looked at Jsmith_51389's contribs and compared them to those of Jeh akuse ... you're not the only one who hears quacking. Dunno if a checkuser would do any good ... last time Jsmith edited was in December '07. I have to admit, though, I was thisclose to deleting the unblock template and locking down his userspace ... the "request" was clearly abusive. Blueboy96 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsmith 51389. It helps to nail down the sock puppetry and scan for sleeper accounts. December 07 may be recent enough. Checkuser will help us deal with future socks more quickly. This piqued my interest because the username is similar to mine. Jehochman 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed ... time for a community ban, I think. Blueboy96 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies was just nominated for AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_Strategies You may want to comment on it. Igor Berger (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So vote! Jehochman 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope the main page does not get nominated next..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hey, I just saw all of this at MastCell's talk page. I haven't dipped in to those pages (and won't), but I've worked on four featured articles and multiple other articles with Eubulides, and he is one of our finest, fairest, most knowledgeable and most civil, FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. We could use more editors like that. Jehochman 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for a 30 day block from editng Misplaced Pages

I am really seriouce. If I get a topic ban I may get in trouble, and I do not want to risk having a problem. So I rather get a 30 day block, and take a wikibreak. Then I can come back and start fresh! Igor Berger (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't block on request. Jehochman 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well than I do not agree with WP: ban! You should bring the case to ArbCom! Or you can impose the ban, but I may wind up violating it, not intentionally of course. Misplaced Pages is very adictive, it is like a drug! Igor Berger (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the discussion in one place, please. Jehochman 15:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

You have made a personal attack which I asked you to strike a day ago. I am reiterating my request. —Whig (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. You may argue the claim is false, but it's neither personal nor an attack. El_C 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a meat puppet is an accusation of bad faith. —Whig (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a statement that you are acting as an advocate for another editor, instead of allowing that editor to speak for themselves. WP:MEAT is the poorly named, but relevant policy. Maybe I will go rename it now. Jehochman 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to act as an advocate for whomever I want. MEAT is not relevant to that at all. You are not going to rename MEAT because it's a perfectly reasonable statement:

Meatpuppet is a Misplaced Pages term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Misplaced Pages assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. Note the "used only with care" please. —Whig (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)