| Revision as of 23:14, 17 July 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 editsm →JustaHulk: fixing minor typo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,235 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Jehochman/Archives 25. (BOT) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Inline image | |||
| <div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks" align="center">Leave a '''.'''</div></div> | |||
| |image = File:Naturhistorisk Privatundervisning.jpg | |||
| |size = 500px | |||
| |align = center | |||
| |alt = Placeholder alt text | |||
| |fullwidth = yes | |||
| |capcenter = yes | |||
| |caption = <br/>{{big|{{big|"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"}}}}{{small|]}} | |||
| }} | |||
| <!--my archives are messed up so I have removed the links. They might be fixed some day--> | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Jehochman/Archives | |||
| |format= %%i | |||
| |age=168 | |||
| |minkeepthreads=1 | |||
| |maxarchsize=350000 | |||
| |numberstart=25 | |||
| |header={{aan}} | |||
| |archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| <br/> | |||
| This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''30''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| <!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-30 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jehochman/Archive 2--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Bernard J. Taylor == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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. ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==prod Raritan== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| I am under the impression that ] already survived an AfD, though I'm not sure how. If so, then it is ineligible for prod. For this reason alone, I have removed your {{tl|prod}} on the article. ] 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : OOPs. I can't imagine how this survived AfD. Would you be willing to nominate it a second time. This article needs to go away. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm actually frustrated with the editors there. A quick google search yields multiple references to Raritan Computing. However, the article was written by a company exec without sourcing about a year ago. | |||
| ::I became involved during a 3O request, and strongly encouraged them to obtain some secondary sourcing. Several editors (and admins) have slowly been removing unsourced statements, (i believe) in the hopes of ''encouraging'' them to find some sourcing. It's not an article I wish to 'flesh out' and I'm not sure that any of those google sources are more than advertising mentions in 'sales copy' snips. | |||
| ::At this point, I'm unconvinced that anyone will bother to add sourcing, so yes, an AfD is probably appropriate. As for me nominating it.. well.. that'd be something new for me to learn, I suppose. ;) | |||
| ::] 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The AfD process is a bit of a bother, but they have step by step instructions that are very easy to follow. AfD is a good solution. Either somebody will step forward and turn this into a real article (which hasn't happened since the first AfD last year), or else the article goes bye-bye. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've deleted a bit more of the unsourced information. is an example of some sourcing that could be used. It doesn't appear to be a small insignificant company. There just doesn't seem to be anyone who wants to write a promo piece on this company with reliable sourcing. (And promo is what it would really be, imo). I'm torn, it could be a legitimate article, but it isn't right now, and doesn't look like it ever will be. ] 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We really need to find news sources. For example, ] was recently listed on the main page in the ] section, so it is possible to write a good corporate article, but not about every corporation. Size isn't the most important factor. If they are just running along, doing the same old thing, and nobody is covering them, we don't have anything to write about. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| Please note . More spam on the way? ] (]) 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This is going to be a lot of trouble. I've asked the other admin to speak with you. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's good, but I'd hold off on calling this a wheel war. Eagle101 was responding to an unblock request, and it's not necessary to discuss with the blocking admin in that situation (although it's almost always a very good idea). ] (]) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok I've responded on my talk page. If you have further questions feel free to ask. In short I think he deserves the chance to pick himself up. If he returns to the behaviour I would suggest a week long block, and if he returns with the same behaviour then entertain an indef block. Akhilleus, I think I left you a message on your talk... if I did not feel free to slap me. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah I did leave a message ]. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have replied again. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've replied again :) —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am watching your page, and by the way, I appreciate your help in all this. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2007 == | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}Please do not ] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at ]. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> ] 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Uhm, I didn't delete anything on purpose. That was an edit conflict. I was copying my responses from the lower box to the upper box. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is understandable. Please be more careful in the future. ] 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Indef blocks and IP addresses == | |||
| Just a heads up: we don't do indef blocks of IP addresses because IP addresses tend to change hands. The longest I've ever blocked a static IP address is one year - it had posted a suicide note, then when it returned to vandalize more pages after I'd contacted the Pennsylvania state police I imposed that block. More normal is a few days, weeks, or perhaps months. I've put 72 hours on the IP you suggested. If the problems resume after that block expires I'll bump it right up to three months. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Indeed they do change hands. I'll try to cut back on the caffeine and adrenaline. :-D ] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC/U on ] == | |||
| I notice you have a view in the RFC. I recognise most of the other names, and know these users' histories and positions regarding the situation; however, you and ] are new. | |||
| Please, what is your connection to the affair? ] 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No connection whatsoever. I just noticed the post on ]. I'm also a wikisleuth, and I've helped ban a number of disruptive editors from Misplaced Pages. The case you've filed is overly long and doesn't serve your interests. I recommend you spend some time at ]. We need all the help we can get, and you'll learn a lot about how to conduct investigations. Ultimately, you want to file a case with a small number of the very best diffs that directly prove your point. The shorter and simpler your case, the more likely you are to succeed. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The idea of 'minimum amount of data for maximum effect' works well when well-localisable problems are at issue, which appears to be the case in a typical ] situation. However, this case is about long-term patterns, and it can not be illustrated by any small set of singular diffs, no matter how well-chosen. ] 12:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If you look at ] you can see an example of how to handle such a situation. The RFC/U seems to be over, but if you have further problems, try to focus your complaint for better results. If you can't focus the complaint, that may indicate that you should hold off until there is a stronger case. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == conflict of interest == | |||
| Can you investigate http://en.wikipedia.org/Steve_Marchand for conflict of interest, especially in the public service section? The tone of the article is not disinterested. Also, there are no citations. | |||
| thanks--] 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thanks for your help with this one. ] 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==you deleted my request== | |||
| You have my request. I will not communicate with you further about this issue. | |||
| In good faith I explained to Durova partly why this is personal. I will not go into it any further than I already have and I will not accept personal attacks or harassment. | |||
| In all honesty, I don't care what you went through. Your situataion is not mine. | |||
| If you continue to harass me in this manner I will leave wikipedia. | |||
| ] 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : John, I've tried to work with you, but you keep using words like "personal attack", "defamation" and "harassment" to deflect scrutiny of your actions. When you enter into highly contentious situations, such as noticeboard discussions, you must understand that your edit history will be scrutinized and criticized. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are welcome to scrutinize my edit history. You are not welcome to speculate on my motives, my offline activities, or to mis-represent my edit history. You are welcome to say that you believe I look guilty, as that is simply bad faith on your part. You are not welcome to say that I am guilty of anything unless you have proof of the claim, as that would be an unfounded ]. | |||
| ::As you have demonstrated bad faith and do not acknowledge that your actions were wrong, I have nothing further to say to you. This is my last communication with you. ] 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Peace be with you.] <sup>]</sup> 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Did I lose any footwear? == | |||
| Please don't take the question as a smart ass rhetorical jab. It's intended to be a friendly did you mean me? ] 08:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : There's no risk of that because I don't understand what you mean. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding this edit summary: 04:20, 25 June 2007 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) (186,508 bytes) (no throwing shoes)...from <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> talk page . ] 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Is your name John, too? I was addressing Lsi John. Notice that my comment is at the same indent level as yours. I was responding to the comment above, not you. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re ] and recent events == | |||
| I regret that I had not come across this earlier, when I may have been able to provide some useful input. Lsi john is one of the most civil, polite and helpful editors I have encountered here in WP. He has chosen to identify himself as a Christian, and to edit according to those principles as they relate to WP policy, rules and guidelines. I would suggest that, until very recently, he comported himself to those standards exemplarily. | |||
| As you have noted, he is fairly new in the WP environment. As such he is not always familiar with the conventions of language used here. It can sometimes be difficult to match the appropriate phrases with the desire to communicate the feelings and points one wants to make, and it is sometimes very easy to misunderstand what is being meant. Lsi john used phrases and terms that are common outside of WP but which, because of the application of ], carry a far greater import here. I feel that in attempting to speak his mind and convey the depth of his feelings in various matters that he may have transgressed some boundaries of what may be deemed polite. | |||
| Some of the comments previously made about and in respect of Lsi john have not, in my opinion, reflected well upon the individuals concerned. In defending one or two participants of a debate, they being both a minority and also adherents of the article subject, it was (strongly) inferred that Lsi johns actions were tainted by association and ulterior motives. From what I know of Lsi john I believe that he would have been deeply offended by the suggestion that his motives could be questioned; he was doing what he believed correct according to his principles. | |||
| I understand why Lsi john has been <s>reprimanded</s> <u>requested to moderate his use of certain phrases</u>. He <u>may have been considered to have</u> violated WP's policies and guidelines. That he was not receiving the assumption of good faith that WP also requires of all editors, that his motives for rather than the context of his arguments were questioned, and his possible relationship with those whose cause he decided to assist, is no excuse for the actions he took and for which he has been <s>admonished</s><u>asked to temper</u>. However, I would like it recorded that I feel it is unfortunate that a good and conscientious ''person'' has persuaded himself that he needs to step away from contributing from WP for a while resulting from the pressure he perceived himself under for having acted according to his beliefs. | |||
| Lastly, I would point out that I do not share Lsi johns faith (whatever it is), or that of the Church of Scientology, or any Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, pagan, etc. belief system or other form of superstition. I simply felt I had to do what Lsi john had originally done and get myself involved in helping as far as I am able. It is simply a record of how I feel about the matter. Thank you. ] 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I am not aware that Lsi john has been reprimanded. This is news to me. I've asked him to be more civil, several times in various ways. He's been interceding in a variety of heated situations. Unfortunately, this has led to miunderstandings. I am sorry if he feels stress, and hope that in time, a common understanding will develop. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are correct, he has not been reprimanded (that is, officially) nor admonished so I have struck those terms and substituted the underline text. Again (and this is not WP:POINT, just a happy coincidence) this indicates how nuances of what may be said or implied in another place becomes a more serious concern here. I was addressing a couple of your very civil ''rebukes'' (informal notification of non-adherence to policy/guidelines with suggestions on more appropriate terminology) in your correspondence with Lsi john. I hope this clarifies my words. | |||
| ::He does go into contentious areas, I acknowledge. One such is where he and I met (we were on the same side of the debate). I recognise the inherent challenges, and am prepared to take the consequences, in a manner which I am uncertain that Lsi john does. Perhaps his faith in what is right does not allow him to make such judgements? I hope he returns refreshed from his break, and continues to contribute as he feels appropriate (but with a better understanding of the use of appropriate language). Cheers. ] 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RS == | |||
| It's completely discredited, and if you read it, it doesn't actually say anything. The policies on sources are V and NOR. We tried to develop a new summary at WP:ATT, and it was policy for a few weeks, but it was overturned, and so we're back to relying on V and NOR. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't say "shameful"; just discredited, which it is. It has always been controversial because it was chopped around too much, was badly written, and it often contradicted other policies and even itself. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == feedback == | |||
| Hi Johochman - thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I'm posting to the wrong place, I'm just trying to work it all out - new to Wik and not so internet savvy. I just wanted to say that I think the way the article on Online advertising is written could be cleaned up - It's just not well written. For a start, Online and Advertising should both have caps etc. Could I have a go at rewriting some of the text? I won't put any new links in. I'm just starting to understand the link thing as well, so I may have added a link to my site which is where the article was posted and that may not have been the best link - perhaps the link should have been to the source of the information which was from an ad agency that does stats etc, that's where I got my info from for the article I wrote. The last figures quoted on that page about Online Advertising were from 2006, recently stats came out (2007)showing a significant movement away from print, tv and radio advertising and towards advertsisng online, and this info may be of use to someone doing some research on advertising. | |||
| figuring it out slowly... | |||
| Rebecca | |||
| : Of course you are free to edit. Make sure to cite ]. I'll watch your edits and try to help you along. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration notification == | |||
| This happens from time to time when you do investigations. I've done my best to seek alternatives but this seems to be the only solution for this dilemma. | |||
| Per recommendation from the ] closure I have initiated ]. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Second time for me, no problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] involving self in a dispute...making it worse == | |||
| Any suggestions you have or input you can make would be good. Lsi john seems to be involving himself in a dispute (Mediation is involved, there have been several ANI's etc) and isn't beening helpful. I see he has a history of involving himself in such disputes in an unhelpful way...I wonder if you could act? See this, for example, ]. or this ] | |||
| ] 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], you might notice that one of those is on an admin's page, and the same admin is involved in the other conversation. And jehochman is not an admin. Would you be kind enough to explain how I'm making anything worse? And, also, why the admin has not suggested that I'm making anything worse? <small>Peace.</small>] ] 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::See, Lsijohn is making it even worse!!! Also see diff ] to see an example of how he is inflaming this situation and making his own false accusations, which he knows are not true. ] 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::], taking a single diff like that, completely out of context, probably wont be very helpful for you. Most people who work the noticeboards are sharper than that and they'll read the entire context of the conversation and not 'assume' something based on a single snippet. The fact is, I made '''no''' accusations there. The fact that you seem to see one, is a bit peculiar. The fact that you think I know something to be true or untrue is also odd. Exactly what do you think I'm accusing, and what is it that I know? <small>Peace.</small>] ] 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], now that I think about it, I welcome your input here too. I've been following this particular situation for quite some time now. It's fairly complex and would take hours to read all the background, but I'm open to your feedback on my comments. I'll trust your AGF read. let me know. Thanks. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : SamDavidson, I am not the designated minder for any particular editor. If you have a problem, please work through normal channels. John, I may look into this since both sides seem to welcome my involvement. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jehochman, I have no preference either way. But I'm always open to feedback and insight. My remarks have been about as neutral as they can be. I've chastened people on both sides of the dispute, and I've made suggestions to people on both sides of the dispute. It's been a long, drawn out, and not pretty situation. Though here I'm less involved than with our current co-involvement. I'll tell you more about Sam once you have an opportunity to go through both posts. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might want to read the user RfC on DPeterson too. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::John, why don't you sign up as an admin trainee with an administrator who specializes in mediation? I am a big fan of training. You can get free coaching here, and develop (or improve) your expertise. Misplaced Pages skills transfer over into real life. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed they do. :) <small>Peace.</small>] ] 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], Since Sam doesn't feel that I'm being fair or helpful, perhaps you'd like to work with them and help resolve this situation. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : My inclination is to refer it to ]. Informal mediation doesn't seem possible because one or more sides don't want to volley. The issue is whether or not that user is Becker or looks so much like Becker that it casts the article's neutrality in doubt. The patrollers at COIN know how to properly ask for a checkuser, so I think they will get to the bottom of it in short order. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually there seem to have been at least two, maybe three, CheckUser inquiries into the accusatios of DPeterson, Dr. Becker-Weidman, and others being sockpuppets and each time there was a finding, so to speak, of this being unfounded. See: | |||
| ::] | |||
| ::] | |||
| ::the only conflict of interest I see is that both Mercer and Sarner are leasder of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy and have published a book on Attachment Therapy that pushes the POV of their group. They have a financial interest in this issue and the conflict...careers, etc. ] 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Those connections probably aren't strong enough to be considered COI. Experts are allowed to edit in their field, and experts usually have strong opinions. There could be an issue of POV pushing, but that's something different from COI. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm guessing that you are aware, but if not, these editors ended up in arbitration (unrelated to me). <small>Peace.</small>] ] 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Juice Plus== | |||
| Hiya, and yes, I agree on the logo. But I figured it would be nice to ask, and see if I could get a cc-by-sa 2.5 license to put an image in the Commons. :) As for {{user|dr_sears}}, no, I never got a reply. --]]] 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Do you think we should report him as a COI editor, or as an impersonator, or both? The real Dr. Sears seems to be a spokesperson for ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: We talked about it a bit on the JP talkpage. My own opinion is that he's a ''very'' low traffic editor (only a handful of edits in 2007), and that he's not actually edit-warring on any article, he's just popping up on the talkpage, which I think is perfectly legitimate as long as he's been clearly identified as being questionable (which he has). Also, be sure to check the talkpage of {{user|CHT9}}, since I had specifically asked her to participate at the RfC. It's probably worth noting their edits on the RfC as {{tl|spa}} accounts though. The question is, should we also mark Rhode Island Red as such? :) --]]] 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yeah, RIR's editing pattern is very odd, but we have all types here. The real problem for NSA is that their own websites and branding are all screwed up, so this Misplaced Pages article has more prominence in the search results than it should. If they fix their website(s), monitor this article, and report any nonsense to WP:COIN, that would probably solve their immediate business problem. Did he drive off Julia Havey? She seems to have quit out of frustration. That's bad. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had my IM client turned off because I am on vacation. Try again at my AIM address. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Looking at the recent RFC comments by Dr sears, I think it's very likely that this is a sock puppet set up to do a ] on ]. Have you checked that yet? ] <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We can probably talk faster via IMs... Did you get my ping? --]]] 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Not yet. I just emailed you my AIM handle. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Main page == | |||
| Estoy hablando :-) Congrats, and good luck on the main page. I've sworn off of helping vandalfight on the main page, as it frustrates me too much. Have fun ! ] (]) 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Thank you for your support. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : You're welcome! I am glad things seem to be working out. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User award == | |||
| ], give this '''thinking outside the box''' award to Jehochman for being the first Wikipedian to correctly deduce my religion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
| Many before you have ventured guesses because they assumed some credo prejudiced my decisions in site conflicts and the contradictory patchwork has been an occasional source of chuckles. You know what it actually is, and if I continue to act as a neutral Wikipedian may the edit warriors make many more off target accusations. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == seo fa category == | |||
| Hi Jonathan, | |||
| I noticed that the article to ] on the ] page is categorized under '''Computers and video games'''. I suggested that it would be for appropriate to list it under '''Business, economics and finance''', but another editor did not agree with it. What do you think? See my comment here. | |||
| ] --]<sac> ] .oOo. 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 22:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| Hi. Thanks for participating in the straw poll. There, you commented: | |||
| :To begine, information from reliable sources should be added to the existing article. The article may end up supporting, or denouncing the hypothesis, depending on what the available sources say. If the article becomes sufficiently long, this topic can be broken out into a separate article. Please be careful not to create a POV fork. | |||
| ] already has a lot of information from reliable sources, that some editors of ] have refused to allow the contributor to put in the article. Hence the proposal for a separate page. The topic is complicated and clearly the article will be long; it would be a long tangent for most readers of ]. Including me. My interest is in germ cell tumors. --] 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : You propose to create a POV fork, which is the wrong approach. Add the information to the existing article. If you cannot reach an agreement with the other editor, use one of Misplaced Pages's ]. You need to deal with the disagreement. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not propose a POV fork; I propose to move the entire topic from ] to ]. --] 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's a POV fork, in my opinion. Take a look at ] and ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thank you for your comments regarding my post to the RIR RfC. It took quite a while to sort through the RfC and weed out much of the *bs*. | |||
| However, I'm concerned about Durova's post. It is another 'suggestive' post that seems to not be entirely based on good faith. The editor stated clearly - 100% no present or past involvment. I think it is out of line for Durova to then 'insist' on an explanation, based solely on an IP and the location of the ISP and refer to a short commute. (This 'request for an explanation' is essentially calling RIR a liar, which is the same type of thing she did to me). | |||
| RIR never said s/he had no knowledge of the company. Nor did RIR say s/he had no personal opinion of the company. Durova's post very clearly 'implies' that RIR is lying, and I'm not comfortable with those types of posts. | |||
| <small>Peace.</small>] ] 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Evidence page comments that were moved to the talk page== | |||
| I am not aware of any policy or rule that prohibits me from moving wrongfully located comments from the evidence to the talk page. I have no intention of reverting that. --] 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing Suggestions == | |||
| Hi and thanks again for your suggestions regarding articles to work on outside the Juice Plus realm. I have already made edits to several articles that I found listed here . It's a nice break and it has been refreshingly free of controversy. I also followed up on your suggestion to review some of the good article candidates. It's going to take me a little bit of time to get up to speed on what constitutes a good article, but while I am learning the ropes, I will continue to pick away at the articles listed as needing attention. Thanks once again for your constructive comments. ] 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] ]== | |||
| Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the ] article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. ] 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you very much for your copy-edit of ] during its FAC. ] 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced== | |||
| I made a post to ] that you might be interested in. ] <small>(])</small> 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A mere two minutes == | |||
| Providently enough, I have a couple of minutes. Feel free to email me directly. ] 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| On ] talk page you summed up the point I was trying to make. I'm not offended or anything but just wanted to get some feedback: | |||
| : I think all further discussions belong at the case pages. If you have something good to say, make it available to all of us where we will see it. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bothering ] about the arbcom is pointless since the case is already open. Was I being unclear, or did you just want to make sure the message got across? ] 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To clarify; I'm not looking to fight or anything like that, you appear to be a neutral editor, so I'm asking for your feedback. | |||
| ] If it was, again I'm not looking to fight or argue but for more information. ] 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Please take all comments and questions about this case to the arbitration forum. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : See ] for the answer to your specific question. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==What the..?== | |||
| very surprising edit of yours just jumped up on my watchlist. "Disruption"? What are you talking about? How is the acknowledged alternative account ] disruptive, or trolling, or any kind of appropriate arbitration evidence? There are only a few contributions, did you click on any of them? Or look at its explanatory userpage? Did you notice the unblock reason the next day? You think ''that'' extremely pacifistic, rather sad sock is disruptive, take a look at ] (and I assure you the ArbCom know mine, and fear her). Seriously... As Justanother mentioned in his unblock request, the JustaHulk account literally never edited any other page than its own and Bishzilla's. In fact, I suspect it was my own creation of that playful alternative identity, which nobody has thought to block yet, even though it has been disrupting all over the wiki for months (down, Bishzilla!) that inspired his JustaHulk. That Smee then chose to go to User talk:JustaHulk and try (unsuccessfully) to stir him up hardly seems a good reason for Jersey Devil to block JustaHulk. Hmmm... I suspect Bishzilla is on her way over to have a little chat with Jersey Devil... Oh, no... RUN, JD ! ] | ] 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == JustaHulk == | |||
| Is it really appropriate to characterize this activity as trolling? Looks like meaningless chatter to me: ] stuff, but still an acknowledged account with very few edits. I identified the Justanother talk page banter only because it overlapped with the community ban discussion. The timing establishes circumstantial evidence that they supported each other's positions out of cameraderie rather than on the merits of the case and that they endeavored at concealment. ''Trolling'' is a strong word. Would you consider refactoring? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:35, 19 November 2024
"Hold on, I zoned out for a minute. Which one of you was the Icewhiz sock again?"Source
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)