| Revision as of 05:45, 8 August 2009 editErik9 (talk | contribs)30,314 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:45, 8 August 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| ==RFAR== | ==RFAR== | ||
| A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at ]. ] (]) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at ]. ] (]) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==ANI report changes== | |||
| Hi Jehochman. I am impressed with the changes you've worked up to ANI reporting and am following their implementation with interest. One thing I noticed is that parties who are in dispute with and editor but not the main parties in a conflict are still weighing in heavily on discussions. My understanding was that the formatting was intended to make it clear who had involvement and who is an interested part (so to speak), but that aspect doesn't quite seem to working effectively yet. I'm not sure how it can be made clear who disputants, as opposed to neutral parties, are. But I think that was part of the intent of the changes and would be very helpful if ti could be accomplished. I'm sure there will still be gray areas. And just because someone has a past conflict doesn't mean they are prohibited from commenting, but for long running feuds, I've noticed there can be regular teaming up. Maybe a neutral observers commenting section? That way people would have to assert that they are actually neutral instead of just as uninvolved or NOT as involved (however it works now). Anyway, thanks again for your work. I just wanted to share my thoughts. Maybe I should have posted in the relevant discussion on the AN talk page? Feel free to move my comment there or let me know and I will do so. Enjoy your weekend. ] (]) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:45, 8 August 2009
| 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  |
 |
Please leave a new message.
|
Well done!
Well done: defusing a situation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, but perhaps you should wait before complimenting me. I'm not sure it's fully defused. Jehochman 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I meant well done attempting to defuse, or something. I think it's OK now, though, and that your intervention helped. Or that I thought your posts were well constructed and likely to be effective, or something. LOL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Re Your help may be needed
I am concerned that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 is going to generate much more heat than light. Jehochman 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Jonathan. I've got no comment for the time being. I am just keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, stand by with a full charge of drama-suppressing foam. Jehochman 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is a request to close right now. <* thinking *> — Ched : ? 08:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, stand by with a full charge of drama-suppressing foam. Jehochman 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Awww crap. I reached down and found that I did have a pair. We'll see what happens I guess. — Ched : ? 10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting ...
... I do believe that is the first time that I didn't agree with your decision. Not that my opinion is important in the least, but I did want make note of it. I suspect it will be a very rare occasion. ;) — Ched : ? 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (referencing the ANI thread closing)
- Yeah. My concern is that when people go straight in looking for a block I want to make sure I'm not getting involved in any games. Also, demanding an apology is itself rude. I'm not going to block somebody for rudeness when the person requesting the block is also being a little rude. In a different set of circumstances I might be convinced to block. Those remarks were close to or slightly over the line, but all factors need to be considered, including drama and disruption potential. The subject of the thread appears to have disengaged from the conflict. Should they resume, let me know and I will be less generous next time. Jehochman 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think that "block" was what should be done - not in the least, on that part I agree. It was rather that I thought the discussion should have been allowed to continue. I have a great deal of respect for both David and Slim, and I was rather shocked to see that conversation. I thought it should be pointed out to David - "Hey, calm down, and get your act together", but I didn't think it was cause for a block at all. Many folks here are very passionate about what they do, and I think that is a good thing. Sometimes emotions get the best of us - I think that is to be expected. I also agree that apologies can not be "demanded", rather they are earned. These civility issues are at the forefront of many editors thoughts these days. I was only in disagreement with closing the conversation. I'm no longer in a situation where I need to "get help" in most respects. Of course if I was directly involved in a matter, then I would indeed ask for extra eyes on a situation. I was just surprised that you "closed" the situation, not in your suggestions. I suspect that you may be a bit surprised at how often I whole-heartedly agree with you, even if I do often "watch" rather than "type". — Ched : ? 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe I should have just moved the discussion to WP:WQA and let it continue there where nobody was at risk of being blocked. Feel free to do that if you think it is the right choice. Be sure to notify the participants if you do. Thank you for your kind words. Jehochman 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies if I inadvertently added "fuel" rather than "foam" to the situation Jehochman. That honestly was not my intent. You do indeed have my utmost respect sir. I suspect that there were the best of intentions all the way around, hopefully it has been a learning experience for all those involved - and we are one step closer to "understanding" now. Thank you for your input, your advice and thoughts are valued more than you may realize. All my best. — Ched : ? 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I should have waited for you to move the thread. :-P Jehochman 12:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- LOL ... User:Ched = chicken. :-) — Ched : ? 08:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A hand if possible
Hi Jehochman as you know I'm working on the Laudabiliter article. I'm expanding the related articles as I go, expanding them if possible. One of the articles I wish to create is on the Synod of Cashel. The problem is that the Synod of Cashel keeps linking to the Laudabiliter? I don't know how to fix this and any help would be welcome. Thanks a chara, --Domer48'fenian' 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- When there's a redirect, you'll see a little blue link under the title. You can click that, which in this case leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Synod_of_Cashel&redirect=no. Then click edit and replace the redirect instruction with whatever content you are adding. Jehochman 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's sound a chara, fixed it! It was the redirect I could not find, but thanks to your link I'm back in the game. I just hope it's not deleted before I have a chance to build it up. LOL, thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no more in the mood for this row rising at the minute and you mentioned something way back when about avoiding baiting? Any suggestions? My first reaction is to ignore, but that does not seem to work in my experiance. I'll just carry on editing for the time being? --Domer48'fenian' 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
MFD
This is to let you know that your name has been brought up at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you did not catch the gist of what I was saying, so I've clarified it for you in my reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
RFAR
A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
ANI report changes
Hi Jehochman. I am impressed with the changes you've worked up to ANI reporting and am following their implementation with interest. One thing I noticed is that parties who are in dispute with and editor but not the main parties in a conflict are still weighing in heavily on discussions. My understanding was that the formatting was intended to make it clear who had involvement and who is an interested part (so to speak), but that aspect doesn't quite seem to working effectively yet. I'm not sure how it can be made clear who disputants, as opposed to neutral parties, are. But I think that was part of the intent of the changes and would be very helpful if ti could be accomplished. I'm sure there will still be gray areas. And just because someone has a past conflict doesn't mean they are prohibited from commenting, but for long running feuds, I've noticed there can be regular teaming up. Maybe a neutral observers commenting section? That way people would have to assert that they are actually neutral instead of just as uninvolved or NOT as involved (however it works now). Anyway, thanks again for your work. I just wanted to share my thoughts. Maybe I should have posted in the relevant discussion on the AN talk page? Feel free to move my comment there or let me know and I will do so. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)