Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 21 October 2014

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.

This page needs more maintenance tags. January 2014. Please don't slap orange-box maintenance tags on articles. Time is better spent fixing them. If you don't have time to fix a problem, please use the article talk page to leave comments. Thank you.

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

A thing I forgot to say

Hello Jehochman. I noticed a recent edit from you and remembered something I once meant to tell you, but had not. You may remember a related discussion on Jimbo's TP where I entered the discussion: light on background and facts. I spoke to you with the negative sentiments of bias alone. All the while, as I opined, my conscious nagged at me, and conflicted my thoughts. I knew I had seen your user name many times, and I was pretty sure I was always favorably impressed.

Within a month to six weeks after we interacted on Jimbo's TP, I saw your involvement in a few "marquee discussions". Without equivocation, you are a "first class" administrator; one that I fully support. I am glad that you handled the ridicule of our discussion with such courage, and calm strength. Regarding the day on Jimbo's page, when I spoke to you with both knees jerking, I apologize, and stand corrected. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'll admit that had I forgotten about that conversation, but please don't feel sorry, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Jehochman 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. My apology is not for disagreeing, it is for being disagreeable. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Talk:Evolution

Please be aware that the boilerplates at the top of Talk:Evolution clearly state that the talkpage is for discussions about improving the article only, and under no circumstances are editors to be permitted to misuse and abuse the talkpage as a soapbox or a forum thread from which to demand that the article be rewritten into religiously inspired anti-science propaganda, as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. It's blatantly obvious that User Frank M Martin was not editing in good faith as, in his original screed and only edit, he was using an Appeal to the Majority fallacy to claim that evolution is false because more people allegedly believe in Creationism than in evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This might be true, but a heavy handed response will encourage more Battles. Jehochman 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaving nonsense like that on the talk page will only encourage more creationist trolling. We have other articles about creationist views on evolution but this article is purely about the science. Never feed the trolls.Charles (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A gentle approach is commendable, but, unfortunately, I've found the opposite approach more effective: these particular editors, both the misguided and the Saboteurs For Jesus, are determined to use Misplaced Pages talkpages as a platform to both browbeat other editors into agreeing with them as well as to disseminate anti-science propaganda. I've found out firsthand that such editors are immune to subtle hints, and take all attempts at gentleness as an open invitation to continue their unconstructive editing. The most effective way to prevent talkpages from being misused as an ideological battleground is to delete such threads the moment they pop up, otherwise, these editors will never get the hint.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because they are trying to have an ideological battle does not mean you should join the battle because you are right. No, you should reject battle tactics. Leave their stupid comments in place and the replies. I don't like that you support the removal of my comment. Are you suggesting that I'm a troll? Jehochman 19:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested you are a troll.Charles (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles was saying "Don't feed the trolls." Furthermore, leaving the creationist and anti-science trolls' comments and the replies in place only encourages other editors to further ignore the boilerplate warnings that clearly state how the talkpages are for discussing improvements to the articles, and are not for forum threads and soapboxes, what with no consequences, and all.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sprinkler Court

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You did the correct move on User:Sprinkler Court. Read this article from Buzfeed about him: GOP Opposition Research Firm Is Editing Democratic Politicians’ Misplaced Pages Pages. -- Alexf 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call on that, although their reaction that their edits are not disruptive should produce some interesting results down the road. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he or the firm he works for is going to appeal his block. The firm's executive director said, "We've consulted long-time Misplaced Pages editors, don't believe the blocking will stand, and are going to appeal." GOP firm plans appeal after researcher is blocked by Misplaced Pages Jinkinson talk to me 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome to appeal by placing a note on his talk page. Anybody can copy it to WP:ANI for a full community discussion. Jehochman 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"I have never been paid to make any edits to any pages. America Rising, the firm that I work for, is not paid by its clients to make edits to Misplaced Pages. It's not part of our job description. I am just genuinely interested in politics and current events." He's just a curious citizen, yet the executive directory of his advocacy firm is going to appeal his block after consulting "long-time Misplaced Pages editors". Second Quantization (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ROPE. Soon enough this matter will resolve itself one way or the other. Jehochman 17:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfcu

Msnicki and I certified it. Please restore. NE Ent 01:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I was just coming to explain to you in detail why I deleted it. And no, it was not properly certified because your diffs of alleged attempt at dispute resolution were from 2012. You can't point back two years and start an RFC now. Msnicki's diffs were from 2014 and did not appear to be the same dispute. If you want to have an RFC/U you need to make sure you follow the minimum requirements. I have more thoughts on the matter and would be happy to discuss this with you, and if necessary, recover any deleted content which you don't have a copy of in case you want to try again. Jehochman 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is about General user conduct, not simply the specific instance. There is no time requirement in the requirements about how long before an RFC/U the discussion had to take place for it to be valid. NE Ent 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read this section carefully Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements and tell me how your discussion in 2012 and Msnicki's discussion in 2014 could relate to "the same dispute". Could you give me a recent and perhaps egregious example of behavior? If we can find two users who discussed that incident, it would form a proper basis for an RFC/U. Once you've got two people disputing the same issue with the subject, the past pattern of behavior can be presented to show that it's not an isolated incident. I am definitely not saying you can't have an RFC/U, but you need to follow the requirements, and I could help if you wish. Jehochman 01:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)