Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 3 January 2010

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.

The improper actions of an ex-admin (who hates humour)

See topic at bottom of this revision (it's your talk page, but no need to leave big text here).

Question: What is right forum/process to restrain such an editor from damaging the conversation environment by acting as anti-humour patroller? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Set aside (subsume)

Bigger fish to fry. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Catch and release. (Now as to the previous question, perhaps next year.) Proofreader77 08:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Spellcraft?

In case you were wondering what the hell I was talking about: .  :-) — Coren  14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I watched that movie at Halloween with my kids. :D Jehochman 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about this movie? Here's a trailer. Have you watched it yet? Whatever that button is that the man with the cat pressed, I hope that the admins will never get it added to their tool kit. David Tombe (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. No. No. Wrong movie. My relationship with ArbCom is like this one: Jehochman 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There's pie (as above) ... and there's prophecy ;-) Waywardly breaching the edge of infinity Proofreader77 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist again

At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs), Ncmvocalist announced:

It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate, or permissible, for Ncmvocalist to close a topic on the Administrators' noticeboard?—Finell 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Somebody else can reopen it, or change the close if they think he did it wrong. Jehochman 11:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The question I was trying to ask: Is it appropriate, or permissible, for someone who is not an administrator to close a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard? (Belated) Merry Christmas and (very slightly premature) Happy New Year!—Finell 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the community would agree it's a problem. I personally believe that anybody can do any task if they do it correctly. Ncmvocalist was previously asked not to act as unofficial arbitration clerk on arbitration pages. There may be a touch of not getting it. You could start a discussion if you think the close was improper. Jehochman 19:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. He didn't close it, he merely proposed to do so "unless there is some material objection". An administrator closed it after Ncmvocalist and I had a spat over the issue.—Finell 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for useful things

Drama-box (excellent! and multi-purpose^;^) + signature trick. "Make my day" (Indeed. lol) Proofreader77 22:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Erstwhile" is, for some reason, not a word in my active vocabulary ... but I see it appears useful. (Perhaps the problem is that it's a word you wouldn't expect the audience to know what you meant if you said it as a guest on Letterman. I will ponder it further... while eating some pie. :-) Proofreader77 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Esoteric words require the reader to think or use a dictionary. This helps prevent hasty or insipid replies. Jehochman 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "Insipid" is not ... :-) Most excellent hangout, you have here, Jehochman. Wonderfully interesting December. Next year is going to be ... amazing. One thing's for sure — my user and talk pages are set ... for the decade. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 08:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Block of anon

Hey Jehoch. Is it possible to get some follow up and review of your block? I looked into it a bit, and the editor seemed to be editing in good faith. They're accused of being a sock of an editor that was banned in 2005? This seems kind of extraordinary. Is there more of an explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Editors who are blocked indefinitely can't circle back 4 years later and do the same things that got them blocked in the first place. Hunting heads of content opponents on ANI is bad faith activity. The user in question has been socking along the way. This is just one more in the sequence. You'll note that this IP was blocked in 2008 for disruptive editing. They have not reformed. The 2005 indef is still valid. Jehochman 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there some diffs of problematic edits? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for all your help in 2009. Wishing you a very Happy and Prosperous New Year 2010. :Radiantenergy (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that a "battle" statement?

Connolley removes scientific papers he doesn't like and now he is proposing only those that "improve" science be allowed to edit those articles. Pointing out this obvious inconsistency isn't a "battle" statement. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My appeal.

You are hereby notified: . --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)