| Revision as of 00:22, 1 January 2010 editVanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs)2,640 edits →How is that a "battle" statement?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:42, 1 January 2010 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 18.Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| {{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
| == Bennetta Slaughter edit and COI == | |||
| Jehochman, please see this . Can you field this and respond to the user's questions? I think it might be best coming from you, as you are quite knowledgeable about this issues (both the user's acknowledged coming from an employment of ], and the ] case, etc.) Thank you for your time, ''']''' (]) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Any thoughts on this? ''']''' (]) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry for the delay. This looks like a case where the user should be kindly directed to ] and advised to follow best practices. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, ]. Perhaps you could point the user in that direction? ''']''' (]) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you very much. As a heads up, please see this . ''']''' (]) 23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == What a wonderful quote == | |||
| Prominently on my talk page now. Thanks! ] (]) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is that civility is ''not'' objective - it's inherently and unavoidably subjective. The attempt to reduce civility to a set of objective rules is one of the roots of dysfunctional Misplaced Pages culture. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Courts have done it for years to define the boundaries of workplace harassment. We're no different. This is a workplace for volunteers. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks again, excellent point again Jeho. There is ], but in attempting to make thisa guideline, editors argued this is perscriptive, not descriptive. ] 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The improper actions of an ex-admin (who hates humour) == | == The improper actions of an ex-admin (who hates humour) == | ||
| Line 74: | Line 59: | ||
| ::Are there some diffs of problematic edits? ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | ::Are there some diffs of problematic edits? ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Greetings== | == Greetings == | ||
| Thanks for all your help in 2009. Wishing you a very Happy and Prosperous New Year 2010. :] (]) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | Thanks for all your help in 2009. Wishing you a very Happy and Prosperous New Year 2010. :] (]) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:42, 1 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)
- 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)
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)