Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 9 September 2007

Clicking the "Recent changes" link in the interaction menu on every page will give you a list of all edits in the last few minutes. If you just want to watch for changes to articles you have edited, use your Watchlist. You can add articles to your Watchlist by clicking "Watch this page" tab (starred) at the top of any article (the talk page will be auto-watched, too). You can click "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on any page to see changes made to the pages linked from the one you are viewing. And finally, you can click the "My contributions" link to view a log of your edits; if yours is no longer the edit marked with "top", then someone else has edited the page.

Archives
June 2006 – Mar 2007 Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007 August 7, 2007 - the mysterious future This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Bernard J. Taylor

Your comments about this profile simply being advertising is very disingenuous, inaccurate and alarming. You could use that comment about just about every profile on every writer and composer. Happily, more experienced editors apparently do not agree with you. Siebahn

Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

User:Orderinchaos incident at Elonka's RFA

Administrator Mackensen reports that "there are socks afoot. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) is also Zivko85 (talk · contribs) and DanielT5 (talk · contribs)." Apparently OIC voted against Elonka three times. I guess he feels very strongly. More details at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2#Sockpuppetry. Jehochman 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll find part of the expaination for TY blocks at User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets. Gnangarra 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look at that. Do you have any other background info that might be useful? Jehochman 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

TY created a walled garden around Aquinas College, Perth that would have been the envy of every Babylonian architect. We (Perth based Admins) used a number of different approaches to break through these walls and get the various editors on track, two editors eventually received numerous blocks they were Twenty Years (talk · contribs) and Auroranorth (talk · contribs) to which they responded with establishing sockpuppets. Both have since been unblock with conditions on how/what they can edit over the next three months These issues had been the catalyst for this essay though it originally cover the actions of a number of students from private schools in WA, the schools had recently introduced a community service requirement into the high school certificate. The essay has since been expanded to cover the broader subject of school based articles. Gnangarra 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say there's no evidence of any sort of vote stacking related to these accounts. Thank you for confirming that. Do you know if these folks attend school with any other Wikipedians who've been "voting". OIC has taken responsibility for his actions and made adjustments. I am glad he has done so because that reduces the need for any sort of external remedies. Nevertheless, it is troubling that an admin and his very close friends formed a voting block in contravention of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. I am wondering if we've discovered the full extent of the problem, or if there are any other undisclosed friends who are part of the scheme. Hopefully with a bit more due diligence we can eliminate any doubt about the results of this RFA. I've asked Rebbecca to chat. Perhaps she can help us clear this up. Jehochman 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one other of the school editors still editing and after checking the complete edit history of the RfA he hasnt participated. Gnangarra 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I feel feel really bad for OIC because even in just the short discussion I had with him, he impressed me. Hopefully he will move beyond this, and I certainly am willing to forgive him. Jehochman 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incident involving Twenty Years

Hey, thanks for the note. Basically what User:Gnangarra and User:TheWinchester said is basically it. I have clarified it. Cheers for the note. Twenty Years 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I am glad to see that you have resiliency. If you write a good or featured article, I will gladly give you a barnstar. If you need any copy editing help, just let me know. Jehochman 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot. If you're open to copyediting...i am working on this which is a majorly edited version of Aquinas College, Perth, an article ive worked on since Nov 2006, which is currently GA-Class. Anything you could help with would be much appreciated. Cheers. Twenty Years 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When you are ready to launch that version, tell me and I will give it a good copy editing and make it suitable for FAC. I prefer to work on live versions. You should have no problem getting it promoted if things are as they appear. Is this your first FAC? Jehochman 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When i put it up, this will be the second time i have put this article up for FAC, althought this has been up for FAC 3 times previous. This is (in all wikitime) 2nd FAC nomination... Twenty Years 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ive posted the article live into article-space and was wondering if you could copy-edit it as to get it ready for FAC. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm presenting at a conference this week so my time is short, but I will look at it as soon as I can. Promise! - Jehochman 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments in RfC

Your comments in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 seem out of place; shouldn't they be on the talk page? It also seems to me that if you're the "overseeing admin," then you need to be very careful about unsupported allegations; if ideogram has been a sock puppet, please link the evidence; if the new guy might be a sock, do a checkuser and find out. If they are what you allege, can we just remove them, so that the RfC is not distracted by them? Dicklyon 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you did link the evidence on ideogram, and I agree he's a sockpuppetter; I haven't looked at whether he's abusive, but I'll take your word for it; I don't know why he decided to involve himself in this matter with DreamGuy. As for User:You Are Okay, I think your guess is way off base; he's just a newbie spammer who had his first three contribs reverted by DreamGuy and then noticed the proceedings very his talk page and decided to pile on; not a sock, just a distraction; I've asked him to withdraw. It's no big surprise that he used the "cite web" template, since he just copied the line above where he put his link. Dicklyon 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that ideogram has withdrawn, and confirmed (on User talk:Ideogram#Why the DreamGuy involvement?) that he's not related to User:You Are Okay, can we just take all the noise out of the RfC page? Can you look at my comments on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram and retract that suspect please? I've also asked him to withdraw. Dicklyon 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you have a conflict with DreamGuy, and want to prevail, but the ends don't justify the means. I am not going to ignore when Ideogram and his socks disrupt things and create a false impressions against DreamGuy. Jehochman 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should ignore it, but he's not the one creating the impression, just muddying the water. But, no matter, if that's what you think is fair. Dicklyon 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I must agree that your speculation about User:You Are Okay is distracting and unwarranted – Until there is evidence connecting them, I'd request that you remove that comment. I'm also wondering why you signed as "overseeing admin" when you are not an admin? Thanks :) --Quiddity 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was the overseeing admin. I signed as my user name. The note was meant to be addressed to the overseeing admin, so I fixed it. I stand by my investigation. You Are Okay is a suspected sock puppet of Ideogram. Jehochman 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Barcode-printer.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barcode-printer.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Media Optimisation

I personally disagree with Misplaced Pages linking only to 'trusted' sources. It presents a very narrow version of the web and serves only those sources (which are often stuffed with ads). Having said that, I don't really care about the link. It was the best page I could find on the subject. Perhaps a suggestion on a more appropriate page to link to would be better than simply removing the link. --Kalpha 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are disagreeing with a fundamental policy. If you want to see what an encyclopedia looks like when there are no standards for sources, try Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's not very useful for anything except trolling and flaming. - Jehochman 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know when you last checked the article but there is currently a nonsensical section called Social Media Index. I don't see that as very different to the link I chose if this is the 'policy'. Thanks. Kalpha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam happens. I've cleaned it up, and you are most certainly welcome to delete spam any time you see it. - Jehochman 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kalpha

I'm a sock?!?

Are you kidding? Anyway, when I started editing I made clear several times that I previously edited without logging in. The IP was variable, however the current IP is: 91.125.109.6. I edited from June to mid-July without logging in before getting an account, which probably explains why I had some familiarity with procedure. An example IP address that I previously used is 80.189.177.227.--Addhoc 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of being a sock. I did look at the possibility because you were aligned with a known sock puppeteer. From the evidence, this isn't likely, but you do have some funny edits to your userpage that raised a suspicion worth investigating. I've struck your name on the list to make this clear to anyone who looks. - Jehochman 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony

Don't template the regulars, especially those who may know very well what they are doing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, nobody is above the rules. I'll template Jimbo if he steps out of line. I started with a friendly personal message, and Tony just ignored that completely. - Jehochman 09:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template with the edit summary "false vandalism warning". I suggest you read WP:Vandalism to see what is considered vandalism. Further such actions will be interpreted as a violation of WP:DISRUPT and as such will be properly dealt with. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 09:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You can do what you like. I'm not going to edit war with you all. - Jehochman 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the bother, Jersey Devil. That bit of cluelessness only confirms my feeling that the noticeboard is being abused of late by people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works but want to hustle some action anyhow. --Tony Sidaway 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. On my talk page, please don't use insults like "hustle some action" against me. Thanks. - Jehochman 09:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No insult intended. Just don't make any more false accusations against bona fide editors, and stick to your promise not to edit war, and I think we'll manage to rub along. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There's no need to delete cases when they can instead be summarily closed and archived. That way a searchable record remains available. This may even serve your interests if you ever want to demonstrate the pattern of cases being filed on this board. Searching archives is much easier than searching diffs, eh. - Jehochman 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars is an essay. I've had a chat with Jehochman about this little flareup. I will also quite happily unblock him or any other editor who gets blocked for "violating" an essay. Please, let's all chill. Durova 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching graduation

Jehochman, I think you're ready for RFA whenever you want it. Due to reasons we've discussed offline I won't be your admin coach anymore and won't be participating at your RFA when it happens. I have the highest respect for your abilities and you shouldn't have any trouble getting a nominator when you decide the time is right. Best regards, Durova 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova, for all your help. I really appreciate the time you spent teaching me. - Jehochman 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

It says:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So it doesnt matter if the person is dead or alive. If its unreferenced, its OR and it has to go. I know the AfD's wont work because soldiers will come to defend the articles and it will remain a no-consensus even though there's no reliable 3rd party coverage, so I'm going to start with deleting the OR first. Anyone else who responds and complains about my actions - I dont care about what you are going to say and wont respond to it, unless it is to bring reliable 3rd party sources for that group of articles. Do what you want now. --Matt57 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you're not listening when multiple people warn you to take it easy. I don't see anyone else supporting you. - Jehochman 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Matt has a good point. Original research should not be the basis for an article; whilst if there is no reliable 3rd party references which support the assertions made, the info, or article should be tagged and deleted. I am not sure why the same standards that apply to other Misplaced Pages contributions should not apply to the articles that Matt has been concerned with? •CHILLDOUBT• 13:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In this situation it looks like Matt has an axe to grind because he was so partisan at Elonka's RfA. I've said that these articles are deficient, that they might be worth AfD, and that we should get neutral parties to look at them. I'm friends with Elonka, so I'd rather not get too deeply involved. We should try to recruit editors who can be completely objective. - Jehochman 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone finally agreed with me, thanks Chilldoubt. I have had people gang up on me in every way on this affair, which was completely unnecessary, a waste of time and assumption of bad faith. But thats ok, I'm following policies and I know I'm doing the right uncontestable thing (taking out unreferenced OR).

Jeho, please forget about the axe to grind. I have none. I'm doing everything fairly now. Let me know about your RfA though, I'll support it. I doubt there's going to be any opposition. I'll ask for your advice in my next step for Antoni Dunin. --Matt57 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram socks

Hi Jehochman, all the socks listed in that case have been blocked already (unless I missed something). If there are other suspected/confirmed socks that aren't listed in the SSP case, please let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a qualified source

Something that is used as a verifiable source in 190 different Misplaced Pages articles, and has been used in Google News on 439 different occasions meets the criteria for a verifiable source. Misplaced Pages's resources demonstrate that. See WP:V

It is particularly odd that a person from WMF has chosen personally to edit out that link. Why are you trying to cover it up? 123.2.168.215 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make a case at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but unless the community decides otherwise, I am going to treat this as POV pushing and COI. It sure looks like you're using this Korean site to publish your own original research and then cite it into Misplaced Pages. Please refrain from making further comments on my talk page. I am going to start a case at WP:COIN where you can discuss this with the community. - Jehochman 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving at WP:COIN

Hello Jehochman. After being nudged by Athaenara, I'm thinking of adding a bot archiving template to WP:COIN. Timeout is negotiable, but Athaenara has suggested 14 days. Let me know if you would object, since I know you are active on the noticeboard. EdJohnston 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I love bots. I use one on this talk page. - Jehochman 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proxy puppets

I tried answering your query on the talk page at WP:SOCK, and found someone else having the same problem, so I tossed this out for consideration. If you want to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Zercle.com

Hi Jehochman,

Since you're into search, I thought I would inform you of Zercle, which is a new search engine that I've just launched to help people find all of the non-fiction books that are available in a given category, and at the same time help authors make sure that their books are easily discoverable by interested book consumers. I think we all know from bitter experience that compiling a complete list of books available in a category of interest on Amazon is either impossible or would require an infinite amount of time and effort. Yet, such a list is exactly what we need when we embark on the book shopping process.

Zercle works kind of like Misplaced Pages in that the "book groups" are created, edited and maintained by volunteer editors. Unlike Misplaced Pages, however, Zercle editors are required to register and are supposed to be "knowledgeable enough" in the book categories that they edit.

I've already started building a few groups on Zercle myself, in the "quantum mechanics" area, since I'm knowledgeable enough there (BS Physics). If you enter "quantum mechanics" into the Title box on the front page you'll see those groups. If you also enter, say, "Griffiths" into the Author box, you'll see the specific group which contains the QM book written by that author. I've only just started these groups, so none of them are yet complete. But, as I've already alluded, the idea is to eventually have groups that are complete, so that users can easily discover what books are available in their categories of interest, and authors can pretty much be guaranteed that users have an easy way of discovering their book.

Zercle editors will employ a unique method (which I think I invented) to extract the "main topics" and "threads" from the core subject of a book, and use this information to determine what group or groups a book belongs in (if a book's core subject has X threads, the book can be in up to X different groups, one for each thread). This analytical method may be a key breakthrough that allows Zercle to succeed in human-powered search where so many other engines have fallen short. (The Zercle system, if it works for books, may also be applicable to the Web in general.)

As yet, Zercle is definitely not "notable", since it was just launched and there's no big money behind it like with Mahalo. In fact, there's no money at all behind it. It took me four years (without income) to work out the Zercle system, so you can only imagine... But that's another story.

Please check out Zercle and follow the "About" link for more info. I think a lot of Wikipedians would make ideal Zercle editors, and some of them probably need a new editing outlet anyway, so I'm trying to figure out ways of informing them about Zercle without breaking Misplaced Pages policies. If you have any ideas about how I can get the message out (especially to Wikipedians and others who are conscientious and knowledgeable in nonfiction book categories) please let me know: paul at zercle dot com. By the way, you would probably make a great Zercle editor yourself in some category areas -- computer science, or whatever -- hint hint.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you find Zercle to be fun and useful. Any feedback such as comments, questions or suggestions is welcome.

Emwave 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed - eComXpo article conflict and personal attacks

Hello Jonathan,

I have a big problem going on at the article to eComXpo and need help from somebody who is not part of this yet. I know that you work with the groups that address arbitration and COI issues and ask for your help and advice in this matter.

1. Article page eComXpo
2. See AfD Debate Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
3. Deletion Review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#EComXpo - still open, but discussion is relevant
4. Talk Page Talk:EComXpo#Confirmed_COI - from that paragraph downwards, although previous sections are also relevant

Since allegations were made that I have a conflict of interest (see my argumentation on the talk page to prove otherwise), which were not dismissed by a neutral party, did I not report the acts of User:Cerejota as vandalism, nor restored deleted article content or removed any of the many tags that were added to the article by the same user. I am unable to proceed in this matter without breaking Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies myself. It probably requires the involvement of one or more administrators who are experts in this kind of situations to resolve the conflict. Another editor, who I don't know got now also involved, while he was attempting to help with the improvement of the article and ran into problems with this user as well. The arguments against him during the AfD nor the deletion review deterred User:Cerejota to continue with his seemingly personal war against the article and anybody who is involved with it. All attempts by other editors (not just me) to resolve this issue were so far unsuccessful. Please help to resolve this. Thank you. I appreciate it. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan: Be aware I have raised a formal request for mediation around this issue. I do so under WP:DR, ignoring MedCab because of the seriousness of some of the things User:Cumbrowski has said. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS

Are going to warn or block editors about their violation of Harass, David Shankbone has done it again and is violating WP:Stalk and he is forum shopping, hope that helps. 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Supply diffs and I will warn anybody who steps out of line. Note: I am not an administrator. - Jehochman 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep reading the thread you warned me from and you should get to it. 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and WP:BLP

WP:BLP says that blogs "never" can be used as a reliable source in an article about a living person, and is very strict about it. I agree with you on the larger question that that sweeps too many reliable sources into the wrong bin (Talking Points is probably a lot more reliable than a number of dead-tree publications we cite, especially when it comes to things like Cuban-government-controlled newspapers), but the policy is the policy, and I was just applying it. THF 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We should fix this because it cuts both ways. I am sure there are online sources you'd like to use. Keep in mind that calling something a "blog" doesn't mean that it is self-published with no editorial control. I have successfully argued that "blogs" with editorial staff and fact checking can be used as reliable sources. - Jehochman 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said as much at WP:RS/N#Overlawyered. Administratively, I can see the advantage of a simple bright-line rule, as it avoids wikilawyering on a slippery slope and reduces the number of disputes, but then you have publications falling on the wrong side of the line. Not immediately clear to me which is better and, like you said, I should avoid contentious disputes. THF 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For certain topics there's no way to write about them with accuracy unless we refer to online media. For instance, social media. How are we going to get the straight scoop if we listen to what traditional media are saying? That doesn't make sense.

I received a funny email today from an attorney who claims that you railroaded her off Misplaced Pages. I deleted it because editors usually don't get banned without good reason, and if they have a real issue, they should email an Arbcom member, not little ole' me. - Jehochman 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman. Jumping up with alarm at the slightest mention of Social media, I can't recommend that you use that article as a good example of where blogs are needed. (See the discussion at its recent AfD, which it unwisely survived). A better example might be RSS, where a lot of the design process occurred through online interaction, and where our Misplaced Pages article refers to blog postings by the principal authors of various specs. EdJohnston 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Social media is a multi-billion USD industry. Shame on us and our incomplete encyclopedia if we decide this isn't worthy of coverage.  ;-) The current article sucks. In the future it will be better. Many good sources are online media. Often these are called "blogs" when in fact they are e-magazines and e-journals. Remember, there's nothing magic about paper. - Jehochman 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology lockdown

Quite awhile back, you intimated that a semi-permanent lockdown of sorts on Scientology articles was in the works - whatever became of this, and how can it be hastened? wikipediatrix 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the scientology-related articles have revert wars going on and Wikipediatrix is one of the participants. I wonder if she wants her version locked down.--Fahrenheit451 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, following me around and adding an unhelpful and insulting insinuation after my every post. I don't care whose version remains, as long as the articles are permanently taken out of all the squabbler's hands, including mine. wikipediatrix 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you include your sticky little hands too, Wikipediatrix :-)--Fahrenheit451 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you all check Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision, you'll see that article probation has been added to the proposed remedies. That will calm things down, I hope, so you can go about your editing without all these problems. - Jehochman 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja

Jehochman,

Thank you for intervening in the revert war between myself and Landsfarthereast. I accept the edits you've made to both pages save one. The Szwaja 2007 section being 90% about past problems of Szwaja's and even editing out anything any other media said about him or mentioning the issues he stated he is running on. I feel that for balance, at least some of this should be included. Mikesmash 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but cite news sources, not campaign websites. If he's taken a stand on an issue, the media will have reported on that. Make sure your statement is neutral and adheres to what the source says. Also, if you are in any way affiliated with the campaign, either as a paid staffer, or as a volunteer, you'll be better off making suggestions to the article talk pages, and letting somebody who's uninvolved edit the article. - Jehochman 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re jumping in

thanks ,but please leave him a note as well. he just edited his user page to remove the admissions of original content, etc. etc, and left a lengthy list of places that cite his articles. However, most either acknowledge that it's a rumor, or that it's jsut a good link for content also available elsewhere, making him, as you suspect, mostly a spammer. Review of his website, and those formerly available at the now deleted WP article about him, looks like it's all startup type stuff, hoping to become big, and I suspect a lot of the 'scoops' that others report, he submitted. ThuranX 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left him a warning, custom crafted. We need an admin to block this fellow. When they are doing 100% spam, no amount of warnings will deter them. He's not interested in Misplaced Pages, except as a means of advertising. - Jehochman 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to agree. ThuranX 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Desert bayou for G11. it's mostly written and produced by him and his friends, all of whome appeared onteh pages from the article Adam Fendelman, which I got speedied yesterday. This guy's irritatingly prolific if nothing else. ThuranX 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yes. If he'd been reasonable, I'd have given him a few tips how to promote his site the right way. - Jehochman 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. May you wear them well. Durova 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jehochman 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Godden page

Hello. I had worked (briefly) on both this and the Szwaja page. I reverted that removal you did of the criticism and kudos for the Godden canidate. It seems to be worthwhile info, but I have no idea why those two are fighting so much over it. Rather than give in to silly pushing on either side, I think it ought to stay in, but might need some tweaking. I see you're a good copyeditor; would you mind looking? It's all this content. Please let me know what you need me to do... • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you are a newcomer to Misplaced Pages. Welcome. One of our important rules is that statement needs to be sourced to reliable sources. The stuff I removed was sourced to campaign websites and editorials. These are not appropriate sources for a Misplaced Pages article. If you'd like to restore some of the content, you should find references to actual news articles. Unfortunately, the article was a real mess of POV pushing. The article seemed to violate WP:NPOV because all those unsourced statements were used to push opinions into the article. If you'd like more opinions on this, you may list the case at WP:RSN. - Jehochman 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts about eComXpo?

Hello Jehochman. I see that eComXpo is burning up a lot of electrons over at WP:COIN. The issue seems to have drawn only the issue-specific people to comment, those who have been following it from one forum to the next. I note you are listed as being a speaker at that conference, which is not of great interest to me at present, since I just want to know if you have any inspiration for how the COI noticeboard should address it. I know you are one of the more faithful commenters on issues at that noticeboard. There seems to be a long-running struggle between XDanielx (talk · contribs) and Cerejota (talk · contribs) about this article.

My first thought is that they should be scolded for silly capitalization, per WP:MOSTM. That probably won't go to the heart of the matter, though. The simplest response would be to say: This is forum-shopping! You've already exhausted AfD and DRV, so this isn't a novel problem. Pursue WP:DR if you want to, and stop bothering us. However there might be a more high-minded and sensible way to address this. Can you think of anything?

The present form of the article does not look bad to me. The idea of having an all-virtual trade show seems novel enough (at present) to deserve a little bit of space in WP. Cerejota's view that the original sources were mostly low-quality is probably correct, except for Steve Johnson's internet column for the Chicago Tribune. His work is not spam. The August 1, 2007 article in the Washington Post is not spam. There are a number of commenters who feel that Cerejota has gutted their article. I don't feel a need to go into the thousands of words of discussion, but I'd be willing to accept the present form of the article as an OK compromise version. As part of the compromise, the tags would have to be removed.

Apparently the issue was just submitted for mediation, but it was rejected because Calton did not agree. The last AfD and the DRV have justified the existence of an article, and our job is to be sure that what survives is reasonably fair and neutral. I know this should really be posted at COIN and not here, but I don't want to stir up the furies just yet. What do you think? EdJohnston 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1. There's no real COI here. 2. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is the correct path. 3. I like your idea of telling the combatants to back off and stop bothering us at WP:COIN. Somewhere in the the COIN header we should make clear that we won't look favorably upon cases filed by people who are trying to get the upper hand in content disputes. I think Roy has a legitimate complaint about that. He's neither the owner nor the organizer. My involvement with this trade show is extremely slight. I'm just going to give a 10 minute speach over the web. - Jehochman 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment That there is another conflict going on should be looked at separately. One editor used the COI allegation against another editor (me) to prevent valid edits to the article. The noticeboard should only look at that allegation and make a decision if COI applies to the editor (me) regarding that article. The other problem needs to be discussed elsewhere. I am building my case for that, but don't know yet where the right place is, to bring this forward. My allegations against the other editor will be severe, but nothing of the concern of the WP:COIN. My 2 cents. --roy<sac> .oOo. 08:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed. xDanielx got involved when the DR started and only had a problem with how cerejota was acting. The whole issue started when user Cerejota entered the AfD debate that was started by somebody else for a different reason. He claimed WP:PROD, which was dismissed. He failed in the attempt to get the article deleted and turned around cripling the article instead under the disguise of being a good editor (after the fact). That other editor who started the AfD changed his opinion btw. and voted in favor of keeping the article at the DR. User Calton is only a supporter of Cerejota and not actively involved in the discussion. The discussion is very hard to look at from the outside and just looking at the comments and actions without putting them in the correct order when they appeared might paint a different picture. I spent the time to put things into a timeline with references to diffs at my user pages here:User:Cumbrowski/eComXpo_Incident_Cerejota. Just FYI. --roy<sac> .oOo. 08:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should back off and let these people do what they like. This is a wiki. The content can always be restored later. Your efforts will be better spent to organize a WikiProject for Internet Marketing. If you can get a dozen or more editors interested in the topic, problems like this will disappear. We need a group of reasonable editors who can watch these articles. Just you or me is not enough. - Jehochman 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BDF-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BDF-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Job screwing up the University of Florida page

Because of your edits, it made the UF page seem dull and boring. I think you owe it to the UF community to edit the page to make it better. I have tried numerous times to revert your edits, however I keep getting the door slammed in my face. It is only fair, that because you started this mess, that you fix up the page. Thank you. WOverstreet 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)