| Revision as of 16:44, 2 January 2019 editWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits →ANI: CETag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 2 January 2019 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits Thanks. I don’t care.Tag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| : This kind of thing really needs to go to ]. ArbCom has set forth procedures to follow. The procedures there prevent rambling discussions. The admins watching tend to be stricter, and embellished complaints lead to sanctions on the editor filing them. It's a good venue for hardcore disputes, unlike ANI. Once a discussion gets to a certain length, uninvolved editors won't read it. So, you either get insufficient participation, or you get uninformed drive-by opinions. Neither of these provides a fair result. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC) | : This kind of thing really needs to go to ]. ArbCom has set forth procedures to follow. The procedures there prevent rambling discussions. The admins watching tend to be stricter, and embellished complaints lead to sanctions on the editor filing them. It's a good venue for hardcore disputes, unlike ANI. Once a discussion gets to a certain length, uninvolved editors won't read it. So, you either get insufficient participation, or you get uninformed drive-by opinions. Neither of these provides a fair result. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've ] for being |
::I've ] for being utterly inaccurate. | ||
| :: | :: | ||
| ::AE '''doesn't''' have an exclusive right to issue sanctions governing editorial behavior in AC/DS-areas and your's branding a {{U|Ivanvector|functionary}} to be forum-shopping '''without''' any attempt at providing reasoning behind your allegation is unwarranted. | ::AE '''doesn't''' have an exclusive right to issue sanctions governing editorial behavior in AC/DS-areas and your's branding a {{U|Ivanvector|functionary}} to be forum-shopping '''without''' any attempt at providing reasoning behind your allegation is unwarranted. | ||
Revision as of 17:19, 2 January 2019
 | 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. March 2005. Please don't slap orange-box maintenance tags on articles unless you follow Misplaced Pages:Responsible tagging. Make sure to leave a talk page message explaining, with specifics, what you think is wrong and why you cannot fix it yourself. Also, consider tagging specific sentences or sections rather than whole articles when such action would be appropriate. Thank you! |
| 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  |
Planet Nine
I hope you don't give up yet. I would be happy to continue my review if you are interested; and when you finally re-nominate, you would have one support right from the beginning already. The article is definitely on a good way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, let’s continue. You could leave suggestions on the article talk page. Jehochman 14:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: a new editor who seems to have a high degree of expertise seems to have fixed some of the rough edges today. Could you take another look and see what needs doing? Jehochman 02:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm on it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the Planet Nine FAC
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| When I recommended it for FA consideration, I forgot what a living hell FAC could be. I hope you aren't discouraged to try again. It really does deserve it. Serendious 20:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC) |
- I’m waiting until we have two supports lined up, then go back and fling it at them again. We’ll get it on the next orbit. Jehochman 21:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
ANI
The ANI thread you recently closed saw multiple editors supporting the broader topic ban but opposing the indefinite. Do you think a proposal can be started for that or you are currently working over the entire thread? Thanks Shashank5988 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't spread this mess to multiple pages. Go back to the original page and file your complaints there. I am working on the entire thread. Patience! Jehochman 14:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- This kind of thing really needs to go to WP:AE. ArbCom has set forth procedures to follow. The procedures there prevent rambling discussions. The admins watching tend to be stricter, and embellished complaints lead to sanctions on the editor filing them. It's a good venue for hardcore disputes, unlike ANI. Once a discussion gets to a certain length, uninvolved editors won't read it. So, you either get insufficient participation, or you get uninformed drive-by opinions. Neither of these provides a fair result. Jehochman 14:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've reversed your closure for being utterly inaccurate.
- AE doesn't have an exclusive right to issue sanctions governing editorial behavior in AC/DS-areas and your's branding a functionary to be forum-shopping without any attempt at providing reasoning behind your allegation is unwarranted.
- That discussion is a mess (as ARBIPA discussions are almost-always) but that's not an entitlement to issue off-the-mark closures; which will almost-always be used by the involved parties in future tug-of-wars as brownie points. ∯WBG 16:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)