Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:16, 23 March 2009 editNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits re WP:AE← Previous edit Revision as of 03:14, 24 March 2009 edit undoNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits re WP:AENext edit →
Line 82: Line 82:
: Thank you very much. In several recent cases I was loathe to place a sanction because participation was so low. If I have to decide something myself, it must be clear. The more thoughtful, uninvolved opinions, the better. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC) : Thank you very much. In several recent cases I was loathe to place a sanction because participation was so low. If I have to decide something myself, it must be clear. The more thoughtful, uninvolved opinions, the better. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


::Okay, I understand your predicament and I do hope more admins step up to the mark and assist in this thankless task. In regard to the report I was involved in, could you at least formally caution Russavia on his talk page too. Thanks, ] (]) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, I understand your predicament and I do hope more admins step up to the mark and assist in this thankless task, seems writing yards of prose is enough to muddy the waters sufficiently to escape sanction when only one admin appears to be working on this board. In regard to the report I was involved in, could you at least formally caution Russavia on his talk page too. Civility is a core principle. Thanks, ] (]) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:14, 24 March 2009

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

  1. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start.
  2. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!"
  3. Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first.
  4. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

Another sockpuppetry accusation

Hi Jehochman. I've been accused of sockpuppetry again, now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kernow. Apparently a user recently mentioned the URL of my website in their sandbox and this has automatically triggered someone to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of that user. As you suggested on my talk page last time, I've mentioned on the SSP and on the talk page of the user who accused me that they can contact you as you are familiar with my situation. Just thought I should let you know I've mentioned your name. Thanks, Kernow (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Xiutwel and 9/11 Arbcom

FYI. Skinwalker (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SEO again

Is the title the main determinant in article rank? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The title is a big factor, but not the only one. The three largest factors, in no particular order are: title, quantity and quality of links pointing to a page, and anchor text of those links. Note that both internal and external links count. One of the best ways to help a page rank better is to use good anchor text in the menus that appear on every page of a site. Consider a hypothetical site where the menu item "Red Lederhosen" is linked to a page titled "Red Lederhosen". If this page also has a heading "Red Lederhosen" and includes the words red and lederhosen throughout the text at a somewhat natural frequency, this page is likely to rank well for that phrase. Jehochman 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AE

Hi Jehochman! Thank you for your comments. I made the following points in AE, with supporting diffs:

  1. R. has been previously included in the list of bans in this arbitration case for harassing another user.
  2. He made an uncivil comment about D. approximately a month ago.
  3. He has been officially warned by an uninvolved administrator for misbehavior after that.
  4. He continue making uncivil comments at different pages.

Which point(s) do you disagree with? If this is the last point, I would be happy to provide more diffs with his inappropriate comments made during the last 1-2 months, not mentioning things he did earlier. Sorry for pushing this issue. It would be fine if this only involved me. But this became an issue for others as well.Biophys (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any points, but I wish that your initial diffs did not include those from the user's own talk page. If you stick to article talk pages, your case is stronger. Additionally, I do not think it helps your cause when Digwuren pops in and throws barbs without shedding additional light on the matter. He should read meatball:DefendEachOther. Jehochman 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I still believe you have nothing against Digwuren personally . I observed some of your actions in the past and agree with most of them and especially your support of User:Durova. However, I respectfully disagree with you in this case. If you agree with all my points above, R. should receive at least a warning from you. Plain and simple. But instead you issued a warning to D. who evidently (see first dif in this AE) was a victim of an offensive comment by R. at the first place. Last (most recent) comment by R. was also against WP:CIV. He repeateadly called D. non-person ("nobody"). Thanks.Biophys

You're invited!

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area
Last: 01/18/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Misplaced Pages Loves Art and upcoming projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

I hope you don't mind. I partially reverted your edit at WP:V. I think your edit is generally an improvement, but I re-inserted "postings", and represented the meaning of "and similar sources" with "etc." to leave it open-ended. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman 23:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for your positive response, which made me very happy! By the way, (and here I hope you have lots of talk page watchers) I'm looking for people to join a new pages patrol competition to encourage people to help clear the new pages patrol backlog. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I really could use your opinion at Stroke

I don't know much but I do know that other editors have given reasons for reverting this. This editor keeps reverting back to their preferred version without comments as far as I've seen. So I reverted requesting it to be taken to talk. Now, should I self revert? I used the edit summary and not talk so was I wrong? I would appreciate your input on this. I will self revert if you say so since I trust your judgements. Thanks again for your advice and/or help. --CrohnieGal 11:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, I don't have to self revert, the editor already did almost immediately but I would still like your opinion on this. Plus this editor has to be way past WP:3RR by now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

re WP:AE

Following a noticeboard comment, I have decided to see if I can help on the above board. I plan to read a lot, then make a few comments and subsequently move toward getting more involved (providing I feel I am able to contribute.) Since you have a high workload, perhaps because of your commitment to the board, I am going to increase it by asking you to keep an eye on me and let me know if I am misunderstanding situations or making inappropriate edits - hopefully in the long run I can then take some of the workload upon myself; and if you do need another opinion on any matter and there does not appear to by any other third party available, please let me know. See you around, I trust. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In several recent cases I was loathe to place a sanction because participation was so low. If I have to decide something myself, it must be clear. The more thoughtful, uninvolved opinions, the better. Jehochman 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your predicament and I do hope more admins step up to the mark and assist in this thankless task, seems writing yards of prose is enough to muddy the waters sufficiently to escape sanction when only one admin appears to be working on this board. In regard to the report I was involved in, could you at least formally caution Russavia on his talk page too. Civility is a core principle. Thanks, Martintg (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)