Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:18, 25 September 2007 editShmorhay (talk | contribs)62 edits Citizendium Kyiv article← Previous edit Revision as of 12:05, 25 September 2007 edit undoMatt57 (talk | contribs)8,665 edits Let me know: new sectionNext edit →
Line 302: Line 302:


The above arbitration case has recently concluded. ] ''(now ])'' is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to ]-related topics. ] is prohibited from harassing ], and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The above arbitration case has recently concluded. ] ''(now ])'' is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to ]-related topics. ] is prohibited from harassing ], and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

== Let me know ==

Let me know if you ever stand for an RfA and I'll be sure to put in my opinion there. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 12:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:05, 25 September 2007

Leave a new message.
Archive
Archives
  1. June 2006 – Mar 2007
  2. Mar 2007 - August 6, 2007
  3. August 7, 2007 - the mysterious future


This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Welcome to my talk page. I'm friendly. Really.

Bernard J. Taylor

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. Siebahn

Would you like to tweak this?

I've started a rough draft at User:Durova/Wikisleuthing to explain what this is about. Contributions welcome.

Help Needed - eComXpo article conflict and personal attacks

Hello Jonathan,

I have a big problem going on at the article to eComXpo and need help from somebody who is not part of this yet. I know that you work with the groups that address arbitration and COI issues and ask for your help and advice in this matter.


  1. Article page eComXpo
  2. See AfD Debate Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
  3. Deletion Review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#EComXpo - still open, but discussion is relevant
  4. Talk Page Talk:EComXpo#Confirmed_COI - from that paragraph downwards, although previous sections are also relevant


Since allegations were made that I have a conflict of interest (see my argumentation on the talk page to prove otherwise), which were not dismissed by a neutral party, did I not report the acts of User:Cerejota as vandalism, nor restored deleted article content or removed any of the many tags that were added to the article by the same user. I am unable to proceed in this matter without breaking Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies myself. It probably requires the involvement of one or more administrators who are experts in this kind of situations to resolve the conflict. Another editor, who I don't know got now also involved, while he was attempting to help with the improvement of the article and ran into problems with this user as well. The arguments against him during the AfD nor the deletion review deterred User:Cerejota to continue with his seemingly personal war against the article and anybody who is involved with it. All attempts by other editors (not just me) to resolve this issue were so far unsuccessful. Please help to resolve this. Thank you. I appreciate it. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan: Be aware I have raised a formal request for mediation around this issue. I do so under WP:DR, ignoring MedCab because of the seriousness of some of the things User:Cumbrowski has said. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS

Are going to warn or block editors about their violation of Harass, David Shankbone has done it again and is violating WP:Stalk and he is forum shopping, hope that helps. 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Supply diffs and I will warn anybody who steps out of line. Note: I am not an administrator. - Jehochman 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep reading the thread you warned me from and you should get to it. 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and WP:BLP

WP:BLP says that blogs "never" can be used as a reliable source in an article about a living person, and is very strict about it. I agree with you on the larger question that that sweeps too many reliable sources into the wrong bin (Talking Points is probably a lot more reliable than a number of dead-tree publications we cite, especially when it comes to things like Cuban-government-controlled newspapers), but the policy is the policy, and I was just applying it. THF 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We should fix this because it cuts both ways. I am sure there are online sources you'd like to use. Keep in mind that calling something a "blog" doesn't mean that it is self-published with no editorial control. I have successfully argued that "blogs" with editorial staff and fact checking can be used as reliable sources. - Jehochman 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've said as much at WP:RS/N#Overlawyered. Administratively, I can see the advantage of a simple bright-line rule, as it avoids wikilawyering on a slippery slope and reduces the number of disputes, but then you have publications falling on the wrong side of the line. Not immediately clear to me which is better and, like you said, I should avoid contentious disputes. THF 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
For certain topics there's no way to write about them with accuracy unless we refer to online media. For instance, social media. How are we going to get the straight scoop if we listen to what traditional media are saying? That doesn't make sense.
I received a funny email today from an attorney who claims that you railroaded her off Misplaced Pages. I deleted it because editors usually don't get banned without good reason, and if they have a real issue, they should email an Arbcom member, not little ole' me. - Jehochman 05:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. Jumping up with alarm at the slightest mention of Social media, I can't recommend that you use that article as a good example of where blogs are needed. (See the discussion at its recent AfD, which it unwisely survived). A better example might be RSS, where a lot of the design process occurred through online interaction, and where our Misplaced Pages article refers to blog postings by the principal authors of various specs. EdJohnston 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Social media is a multi-billion USD industry. Shame on us and our incomplete encyclopedia if we decide this isn't worthy of coverage.  ;-) The current article sucks. In the future it will be better. Many good sources are online media. Often these are called "blogs" when in fact they are e-magazines and e-journals. Remember, there's nothing magic about paper. - Jehochman 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology lockdown

Quite awhile back, you intimated that a semi-permanent lockdown of sorts on Scientology articles was in the works - whatever became of this, and how can it be hastened? wikipediatrix 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the scientology-related articles have revert wars going on and Wikipediatrix is one of the participants. I wonder if she wants her version locked down.--Fahrenheit451 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There you go again, following me around and adding an unhelpful and insulting insinuation after my every post. I don't care whose version remains, as long as the articles are permanently taken out of all the squabbler's hands, including mine. wikipediatrix 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am glad that you include your sticky little hands too, Wikipediatrix :-)--Fahrenheit451 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If you all check Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision, you'll see that article probation has been added to the proposed remedies. That will calm things down, I hope, so you can go about your editing without all these problems. - Jehochman 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja

Jehochman,

Thank you for intervening in the revert war between myself and Landsfarthereast. I accept the edits you've made to both pages save one. The Szwaja 2007 section being 90% about past problems of Szwaja's and even editing out anything any other media said about him or mentioning the issues he stated he is running on. I feel that for balance, at least some of this should be included. Mikesmash 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but cite news sources, not campaign websites. If he's taken a stand on an issue, the media will have reported on that. Make sure your statement is neutral and adheres to what the source says. Also, if you are in any way affiliated with the campaign, either as a paid staffer, or as a volunteer, you'll be better off making suggestions to the article talk pages, and letting somebody who's uninvolved edit the article. - Jehochman 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re jumping in

thanks ,but please leave him a note as well. he just edited his user page to remove the admissions of original content, etc. etc, and left a lengthy list of places that cite his articles. However, most either acknowledge that it's a rumor, or that it's jsut a good link for content also available elsewhere, making him, as you suspect, mostly a spammer. Review of his website, and those formerly available at the now deleted WP article about him, looks like it's all startup type stuff, hoping to become big, and I suspect a lot of the 'scoops' that others report, he submitted. ThuranX 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left him a warning, custom crafted. We need an admin to block this fellow. When they are doing 100% spam, no amount of warnings will deter them. He's not interested in Misplaced Pages, except as a means of advertising. - Jehochman 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to agree. ThuranX 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I tagged Desert bayou for G11. it's mostly written and produced by him and his friends, all of whome appeared onteh pages from the article Adam Fendelman, which I got speedied yesterday. This guy's irritatingly prolific if nothing else. ThuranX 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Yes. If he'd been reasonable, I'd have given him a few tips how to promote his site the right way. - Jehochman 07:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Durova, recognize Jehochman with the Triple Crown for exceptional content improvements to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for all you do. Durova 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. May you wear them well. Durova 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jehochman 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Godden page

Hello. I had worked (briefly) on both this and the Szwaja page. I reverted that removal you did of the criticism and kudos for the Godden canidate. It seems to be worthwhile info, but I have no idea why those two are fighting so much over it. Rather than give in to silly pushing on either side, I think it ought to stay in, but might need some tweaking. I see you're a good copyeditor; would you mind looking? It's all this content. Please let me know what you need me to do... • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you are a newcomer to Misplaced Pages. Welcome. One of our important rules is that statement needs to be sourced to reliable sources. The stuff I removed was sourced to campaign websites and editorials. These are not appropriate sources for a Misplaced Pages article. If you'd like to restore some of the content, you should find references to actual news articles. Unfortunately, the article was a real mess of POV pushing. The article seemed to violate WP:NPOV because all those unsourced statements were used to push opinions into the article. If you'd like more opinions on this, you may list the case at WP:RSN. - Jehochman 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts about eComXpo?

Hello Jehochman. I see that eComXpo is burning up a lot of electrons over at WP:COIN. The issue seems to have drawn only the issue-specific people to comment, those who have been following it from one forum to the next. I note you are listed as being a speaker at that conference, which is not of great interest to me at present, since I just want to know if you have any inspiration for how the COI noticeboard should address it. I know you are one of the more faithful commenters on issues at that noticeboard. There seems to be a long-running struggle between XDanielx (talk · contribs) and Cerejota (talk · contribs) about this article.

My first thought is that they should be scolded for silly capitalization, per WP:MOSTM. That probably won't go to the heart of the matter, though. The simplest response would be to say: This is forum-shopping! You've already exhausted AfD and DRV, so this isn't a novel problem. Pursue WP:DR if you want to, and stop bothering us. However there might be a more high-minded and sensible way to address this. Can you think of anything?

The present form of the article does not look bad to me. The idea of having an all-virtual trade show seems novel enough (at present) to deserve a little bit of space in WP. Cerejota's view that the original sources were mostly low-quality is probably correct, except for Steve Johnson's internet column for the Chicago Tribune. His work is not spam. The August 1, 2007 article in the Washington Post is not spam. There are a number of commenters who feel that Cerejota has gutted their article. I don't feel a need to go into the thousands of words of discussion, but I'd be willing to accept the present form of the article as an OK compromise version. As part of the compromise, the tags would have to be removed.

Apparently the issue was just submitted for mediation, but it was rejected because Calton did not agree. The last AfD and the DRV have justified the existence of an article, and our job is to be sure that what survives is reasonably fair and neutral. I know this should really be posted at COIN and not here, but I don't want to stir up the furies just yet. What do you think? EdJohnston 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1. There's no real COI here. 2. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is the correct path. 3. I like your idea of telling the combatants to back off and stop bothering us at WP:COIN. Somewhere in the the COIN header we should make clear that we won't look favorably upon cases filed by people who are trying to get the upper hand in content disputes. I think Roy has a legitimate complaint about that. He's neither the owner nor the organizer. My involvement with this trade show is extremely slight. I'm just going to give a 10 minute speach over the web. - Jehochman 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment That there is another conflict going on should be looked at separately. One editor used the COI allegation against another editor (me) to prevent valid edits to the article. The noticeboard should only look at that allegation and make a decision if COI applies to the editor (me) regarding that article. The other problem needs to be discussed elsewhere. I am building my case for that, but don't know yet where the right place is, to bring this forward. My allegations against the other editor will be severe, but nothing of the concern of the WP:COIN. My 2 cents. --roy<sac> .oOo. 08:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ed. xDanielx got involved when the DR started and only had a problem with how cerejota was acting. The whole issue started when user Cerejota entered the AfD debate that was started by somebody else for a different reason. He claimed WP:PROD, which was dismissed. He failed in the attempt to get the article deleted and turned around cripling the article instead under the disguise of being a good editor (after the fact). That other editor who started the AfD changed his opinion btw. and voted in favor of keeping the article at the DR. User Calton is only a supporter of Cerejota and not actively involved in the discussion. The discussion is very hard to look at from the outside and just looking at the comments and actions without putting them in the correct order when they appeared might paint a different picture. I spent the time to put things into a timeline with references to diffs at my user pages here:User:Cumbrowski/eComXpo_Incident_Cerejota. Just FYI. --roy<sac> .oOo. 08:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you should back off and let these people do what they like. This is a wiki. The content can always be restored later. Your efforts will be better spent to organize a WikiProject for Internet Marketing. If you can get a dozen or more editors interested in the topic, problems like this will disappear. We need a group of reasonable editors who can watch these articles. Just you or me is not enough. - Jehochman 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Good Job screwing up the University of Florida page

Because of your edits, it made the UF page seem dull and boring. I think you owe it to the UF community to edit the page to make it better. I have tried numerous times to revert your edits, however I keep getting the door slammed in my face. It is only fair, that because you started this mess, that you fix up the page. Thank you. WOverstreet 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, WOverstreet, not a marketing brochure. I suggest you have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. - Jehochman 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply

Saw your note -- I've got an unusually busy day at work today (a thesis defense, two classes, and a proposal due Wednesday) so probably won't be able to look through the case in a timely manner. Raymond Arritt 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I supported your RfA, so you still owe me some mopping.  :-) - Jehochman 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh.. be careful or we'll make you an admin. Can I assume you got it sorted? Raymond Arritt 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sad to report that GSGOSMTH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't been sorted yet. If you look at his talk page my note there explains things. It shouldn't take too long to verify. Being an admin may have its drawbacks, but as you must have experienced yourself, bothering other people ever time something needs handling isn't the best situation. I once spotted a vandal hitting 5 - 10 articles per minute, and it was an awful feeling to be powerless against that. At AN/I they wanted to see four warnings, but the guy kept switching IP addresses. Finally I tracked down a friendly admin. She started blocking IPs one after another and finally he just quit. - Jehochman 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked as a role account. The other aspects were borderline: multiple accounts are allowed as long as they are not being used abusively, e.g., for vote-stacking, deliberately evading 3RR and the like. And yes, some admins are more by-the-book than others with respect to warnings. If someone is clearly up to no good I'll block them even if they haven't received any warnings, with no more qualms than I'd have over swatting a mosquito. No complaints so far. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You were confirmed by a landslide, so you have more authority. When I need help I don't just go to any administrator. Thanks! - Jehochman 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith /C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith /C 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! September 11 is generally a sad day, so it's nice to receive greetings. - Jehochman 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja Edit summaries

I thought I had...? Like so?Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just forgot two in a row. I didn't dig too deeply. Happy editing! - Jehochman 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you mind giving it another once-over when you can? I've just spent about 20+ edits cleaning and arranging it. • Lawrence Cohen 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization revert

Hi,

The source you referred as unreliable on the SEO article reference (SEO must change and so must Google) is already referenced on the Misplaced Pages article on Web 2.0 as a unique authority on the subject.

You might consider reverting it back.

YAM

If you disagree with me, you can file a request at WP:RSN to get a community opinion as to whether this is a reliable source or not. Also, remember to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ - Jehochman 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


You instantly removed the Web 2.0 reference I had just mentioned to you earlier without even bothering to read the article itself. This reference had been present on the article for a substantial amount of time, being subject to constant review and revision by a majority of the editors that frequent the article. This proved that it was a reliable source as deemed by the majority of editors.

There is no need to refer it to t WP:RSN since it had been subject to various revisions for a long time now. Before removing it, YOU should have referred it to WP:RSN to get an opinion as to whether it was worth removing.


YAM 08:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. You're being disruptive, so I am now going to file a report on WP:AN/I. - Jehochman 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I just reminded you of WP:CIVIL on your talk page. Try to stay cool. My nearly 6,000 edits and collection of barnstars are a signal that I'm a fairly trusted editor around here. You inserted that link in July 2007. It's a busy article, so nobody noticed. That's not an argument to keep the source. There was no overt discussion of the source. Please, try WP:RSN, or at least propose the source on Talk:Web 2.0 and give everyone a chance to comment. Those are two easy ways to avoid a dispute. - Jehochman 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"a pronounced distinction between functionality and web technology, enabling significantly easier development of new business-models and processes by using readily-available intuitive modular elements"

Hi, before removing this paragraph at Web 2.0 which is clearly high quality educational material, please discuss it at the appropriate place. Removing it clearly does not serve the greater cause of knowledge. YAM 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

To me, that "high quality educational material" is a bunch of buzzwords stitched together. I have a masters degree in computer science, and am a professional web developer. Listen, you're not scoring points by continuing to argue with me. In fact, you're being disruptive, and I am asking you not to post on my talk page again. I recommend that you take this issue to either WP:RSN or Talk:Web 2.0. - Jehochman 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your credentials are not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what the reference says. If you believe it is not relevant material fit to be in Misplaced Pages, please take it to the appropriate discussion. Arbitrary high handed measures cannot be tolerated, no matter whom they are coming from.

YAM 09:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM

WP:BIO / WP:N For The Security Field

I have one very specific question. I'm working from a close reading of (I know that's dicta, not binding precedent or guidelines) and the definition of . My concern is the technology industry trade press. I personally get a lot of trade press hits. I'm intimate with how that process works. Regarding "reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight" --- even in mainstream tech pubs, there is very little oversight for anything that isn't a cover story. Articles are routinely placed based on press releases or outreach. The typical 400 word trade press release undergoes no fact checking, is based on a 10 minute phone interview, and is dictated almost entirely by the subject of the article; even quotes for perspective from third parties in these articles can be chosen by the subject. The primary criteria for inclusion in the trade press is proximity to whatever trend is being reported this week and the reporter's own deadlines. I therefore don't believe most trade press hits qualify as reliable independent third-party secondary sources. Is this argument sane? Where is it best articulated on the WP? Thank you for letting me annoy you with this. tqbf 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I write some of those articles, so I know what you mean. Even though things move at the speed of electrongs, before Search Engine (Whatever) publishes my article they know who I am and have a belief that I'm reliable. They at least read the thing, and if they post something totally whacked on their site, the masses will yell and there will be all sorts of comments attached saying "this flaming piece of crap sucks." In the rough and tumble, go-go tech world, fact checking happens differently than at the Princeton Law Review. That's OK. The point is, there's a distinctions between ClickZ Network and somebody's home grown blog. As an expert, I can even publish something on my own blog, and that's probably OK, if I'm am well known, as long as it's not too contentious. Misplaced Pages has lots of really low grade articles. I suggest you work on a few of the really bad ones first. Then I suggest you pick a reasonably well developed article and try to get it to good status. Then try to get on up to featured status. My featured tech article is search engine optimization. An example good article is Atlantic City, New Jersey.- Jehochman 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

COI-cum-deletion request

Hey. So, Dr. Levan Urushadze is asking for the his entry to be deleted. What do you think? Regards, El_C 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's borderline notable at most. We should delete it, per the Brandt precident. - Jehochman 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Which would be... what? The second time that precedent is followed? El_C 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there Seth Finkelstein also? Three is a movement. - Jehochman 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Argo

I don't know if this will go somewhere where Jehochman can read it. I'm very new to this stuff.

Thanks for your comments about my edits of the Argo (Oceanography) page. I am a life-long scientist and a successful one and do personally believe that I can rise above conflicts of interest and write objectively. I have in the past written research papers critical of previous work of my own. That said, nobody should be expected to take my word for it. I know well enough that there are two responsibilities surrounding COI, one is avoiding COI and the other, often neglected and likely neglected in this case, is avoidance of the appearance of COI. I will be more careful in the future.

I've just been asked by a German scientist if I'd write a Misplaced Pages note about his software Ocean DataView. I guess that is appropriate use of skill, I know this rather obscure software that is of great importance to oceanographers and nobody else on the planet. He wrote it and maintains it and feels ill equipped to write the article, so I'll try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjfreeland (talkcontribs) 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you write about something obscure, make sure you cite to a reliable sources and avoid synthesizing your own review of the product. Misplaced Pages is a compilation of knowledge available elsewhere, not a publishing platform. Many experts have great difficulty understanding the distinction. If sources aren't available your article may fail the notability test and be deleted. To learn more about the peculiarities of writing for wiki, I suggest you start by copy editing an article such as Ocean, or Oceanography. Take a look at a featured article link Olm to see what we are trying to do. One of my first articles was Robert H. McCard. If you like military history, you can write a biography about any soldier who won their country's highest honor. Those are automatically notable. Happy editing! - Jehochman 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Kyiv

Hello,

If you do not read any of the discussions, please do not go complaining to an admin that a discussion has gone on too long, or that an editor with an opposing opinion can't control themselves.

Advanced google search results fluctuate regularly. A recent search, with filters set for English sites only, shows 2,200,000 hits for Kiev and 1,950,000 for Kyiv. This is hardly an overwhelming majority, and therefore other sources need to be considered.

Also, please do not make accusations of sock-puppetry and meat puppetry without backing them up and then leave the discussion - that does not help anybody.

Thanks, Horlo 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion together at the article talk subpage. I responded there. I have read the discussion, and I'll complain to whoever I like. By the way, I generally agree with your position, if not your tactics. So please, be cool. - Jehochman 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry that I was rather snippy in my first message. You're right - if everybody at that talk page could be a bunch of little Fonzies, it would be good. Thanks, Horlo 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MyBlackBook Article

The article MyBlackBook is NOT advertisement. It has neutral tone, and is cited by many articles (over several references, and news sources). This has been in an article for quite some time. There are numerous references, and sources cited. Google returns over 20,000 results searching on the subject "myblackbook".

This article has been removed from speedy deletion numerous times by other members and editors of Wiki.

The article meets all Misplaced Pages requirements, and is an educational encyclopedic entry. The article was put for speedy deletion over a year ago, and was saved after meeting the criteria of wikipedia.

The article meets ALL of wikipedia's criteria for an article. Resorb 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


WP:AN Discussion

Hello Jehochman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. 199.125.109.35 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be hurting your own cause by forum shopping. - Jehochman 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed so. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a cause, other than to make sure that the discussion is provided a fair hearing. I disagreed with closing the RM and asked for a review. 199.125.109.19 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is there to do here? Ukraine = independent nation, wants names in English. Kiev = English version. en.wikipedia.org = English encyclopedia. Therefore, Kiev. I'd imagine then if someone forced a rename to some other format, it would be vandalism that needed admins, but otherwise, what is the point? Case settled, or am I incorrect? • Lawrence Cohen 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Head over to that page and read the discussion. I'd like to keep it focused there. - Jehochman 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I withdrew the AN because it was attracting negative comments. I noticed that you saw that incorrectly summarized the discussion by saying that there was already consensus (in bold red, and a second time, in bold). I have corrected it to say "no consensus". I attempted to contact the author, User talk:Bishonen but their talk page is protected, so I couldn't. 199.125.109.88 14:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for COI comment clarification

Hello. You made a comment about COI during an ANI discussion. Because your comment seemed undue with respect to WP:COI, I developed my rationales. Could you please clarify your comment? At WP:ANI#Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR (my post is right under yours). Thank you. — Komusou  @ 08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

new article - Storm botnet

Would you mind watchlisting this, and in several days taking a whack at it after I pore through the sourcing (or dig in yourself, if so inclined/interested)? I'm wanting to expand out this article, as there are a very large number of sources on the phenomenon. I'm worried, though, about the structure and flow of the thing, and you and Childzy (leaving this message for them, too) are good copy-editors. I can fill it up, but I'm worried it will take me far longer than you two to potentially form it up into a readable state rather than a mere collection of facts and anecdotes. Lord knows, it took me a while on Szwaja to get my bearings... • Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for the Storm article

What do you think of this one? It was one of the bunch that guy was trying to add in with the Castle Cops forum. • Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source, but even then, it's a problem if they try to add unencyclopedic marketing phrases to our Misplaced Pages article. What set off my radar was a statement to the effect of "Switch to CastleCop because they can withstand the attacks." Sometimes spammers mix good with bad to muddy the waters. I am not sure that guy is a spammer either. He could just be inexperienced. - Jehochman 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, OK. I'll pull aside that content they added and see what can be salvaged out of it. As for Castle Cops, it looks like it was all forum stuff, so that is no good for an RS... • Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BDF-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BDF-logo.jpg. I've tagged it for deletion because I don't think the image meets criterion eight on WP:NFCC If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to the relevant criterion for speedy deletion. Picaroon (t) 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, it's a corporate logo being used on an article about the company. That's indisputable fair use. - Jehochman 20:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Changed my signature back to my username. Hope it won't cause more confusion. Suva Чего? 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could provide useful advice. Happy editing! - Jehochman 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See for yourself and join the fun

Hello Jonathan, One week of not checking my watch list too closely and... see here (entries for 9/13 and 9/21). Oh, you have been indirectly accused of adding original research to the article by the way. :) Enjoy. --roy<sac> .oOo. 06:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium Kyiv article

I have rewritten my post on Kyiv/Kiev naming that points to the Citizendium article on Kyiv -- -- is it now acceptable? Or is any mention of Citizendium forbidden as advertising? Bo Shmorhay 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your initial post revealed that your intention was to promote Citizendium, not improve Misplaced Pages. Modifying the comment to make it acceptable seems like gaming the system. You're best bet is to walk away from this particular page and start fresh on something else. I see you've been reverting multiple times. Edit warring is disruptive and usually leads to blocks. - Jehochman 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- and my apologies for the revert -- I initially thought my posting was being vandalized. Bo Shmorhay 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know

Let me know if you ever stand for an RfA and I'll be sure to put in my opinion there. --Matt57 12:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jehochman: Difference between revisions Add topic