→Search Engine Optimization revert: please move discussion to appropriate forum |
|||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
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. |
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. |
||
[[User:YAM|YAM]] 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)YAM |
[[User:YAM|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]]. - [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:17, 13 September 2007
Archives |
---|
|
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.
User:Orderinchaos incident at Elonka's RFA
Administrator Mackensen reports that "there are socks afoot. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) is also Zivko85 (talk · contribs) and DanielT5 (talk · contribs)." Apparently OIC voted against Elonka three times. I guess he feels very strongly. More details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2#Sockpuppetry. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You'll find part of the expaination for TY blocks at User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets. Gnangarra 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- TY created a walled garden around Aquinas College, Perth that would have been the envy of every Babylonian architect. We (Perth based Admins) used a number of different approaches to break through these walls and get the various editors on track, two editors eventually received numerous blocks they were Twenty Years (talk · contribs) and Auroranorth (talk · contribs) to which they responded with establishing sockpuppets. Both have since been unblock with conditions on how/what they can edit over the next three months These issues had been the catalyst for this essay though it originally cover the actions of a number of students from private schools in WA, the schools had recently introduced a community service requirement into the high school certificate. The essay has since been expanded to cover the broader subject of school based articles. Gnangarra 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- So you say there's no evidence of any sort of vote stacking related to these accounts. Thank you for confirming that. Do you know if these folks attend school with any other Wikipedians who've been "voting". OIC has taken responsibility for his actions and made adjustments. I am glad he has done so because that reduces the need for any sort of external remedies. Nevertheless, it is troubling that an admin and his very close friends formed a voting block in contravention of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. I am wondering if we've discovered the full extent of the problem, or if there are any other undisclosed friends who are part of the scheme. Hopefully with a bit more due diligence we can eliminate any doubt about the results of this RFA. I've asked Rebbecca to chat. Perhaps she can help us clear this up. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- TY created a walled garden around Aquinas College, Perth that would have been the envy of every Babylonian architect. We (Perth based Admins) used a number of different approaches to break through these walls and get the various editors on track, two editors eventually received numerous blocks they were Twenty Years (talk · contribs) and Auroranorth (talk · contribs) to which they responded with establishing sockpuppets. Both have since been unblock with conditions on how/what they can edit over the next three months These issues had been the catalyst for this essay though it originally cover the actions of a number of students from private schools in WA, the schools had recently introduced a community service requirement into the high school certificate. The essay has since been expanded to cover the broader subject of school based articles. Gnangarra 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Incident involving Twenty Years
Hey, thanks for the note. Basically what User:Gnangarra and User:TheWinchester said is basically it. I have clarified it. Cheers for the note. Twenty Years 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. I am glad to see that you have resiliency. If you write a good or featured article, I will gladly give you a barnstar. If you need any copy editing help, just let me know. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks alot. If you're open to copyediting...i am working on this which is a majorly edited version of Aquinas College, Perth, an article ive worked on since Nov 2006, which is currently GA-Class. Anything you could help with would be much appreciated. Cheers. Twenty Years 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Social Media Optimisation
I personally disagree with Wikipedia linking only to 'trusted' sources. It presents a very narrow version of the web and serves only those sources (which are often stuffed with ads). Having said that, I don't really care about the link. It was the best page I could find on the subject. Perhaps a suggestion on a more appropriate page to link to would be better than simply removing the link. --Kalpha 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are disagreeing with a fundamental policy. If you want to see what an encyclopedia looks like when there are no standards for sources, try Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's not very useful for anything except trolling and flaming. - Jehochman Talk 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't know when you last checked the article but there is currently a nonsensical section called Social Media Index. I don't see that as very different to the link I chose if this is the 'policy'. Thanks. Kalpha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Spam happens. I've cleaned it up, and you are most certainly welcome to delete spam any time you see it. - Jehochman Talk 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kalpha
Admin coaching graduation
Jehochman, I think you're ready for RFA whenever you want it. Due to reasons we've discussed offline I won't be your admin coach anymore and won't be participating at your RFA when it happens. I have the highest respect for your abilities and you shouldn't have any trouble getting a nominator when you decide the time is right. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Durova, for all your help. I really appreciate the time you spent teaching me. - Jehochman Talk 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It says:
- Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
So it doesnt matter if the person is dead or alive. If its unreferenced, its OR and it has to go. I know the AfD's wont work because soldiers will come to defend the articles and it will remain a no-consensus even though there's no reliable 3rd party coverage, so I'm going to start with deleting the OR first. Anyone else who responds and complains about my actions - I dont care about what you are going to say and wont respond to it, unless it is to bring reliable 3rd party sources for that group of articles. Do what you want now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I think Matt has a good point. Original research should not be the basis for an article; whilst if there is no reliable 3rd party references which support the assertions made, the info, or article should be tagged and deleted. I am not sure why the same standards that apply to other Wikipedia contributions should not apply to the articles that Matt has been concerned with? •CHILLDOUBT• 13:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- In this situation it looks like Matt has an axe to grind because he was so partisan at Elonka's RfA. I've said that these articles are deficient, that they might be worth AfD, and that we should get neutral parties to look at them. I'm friends with Elonka, so I'd rather not get too deeply involved. We should try to recruit editors who can be completely objective. - Jehochman Talk 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Someone finally agreed with me, thanks Chilldoubt. I have had people gang up on me in every way on this affair, which was completely unnecessary, a waste of time and assumption of bad faith. But thats ok, I'm following policies and I know I'm doing the right uncontestable thing (taking out unreferenced OR).
- Jeho, please forget about the axe to grind. I have none. I'm doing everything fairly now. Let me know about your RfA though, I'll support it. I doubt there's going to be any opposition. I'll ask for your advice in my next step for Antoni Dunin. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- In this situation it looks like Matt has an axe to grind because he was so partisan at Elonka's RfA. I've said that these articles are deficient, that they might be worth AfD, and that we should get neutral parties to look at them. I'm friends with Elonka, so I'd rather not get too deeply involved. We should try to recruit editors who can be completely objective. - Jehochman Talk 13:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram socks
Hi Jehochman, all the socks listed in that case have been blocked already (unless I missed something). If there are other suspected/confirmed socks that aren't listed in the SSP case, please let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a qualified source
Something that is used as a verifiable source in 190 different Wikipedia articles, and has been used in Google News on 439 different occasions meets the criteria for a verifiable source. Wikipedia's resources demonstrate that. See WP:V
It is particularly odd that a person from WMF has chosen personally to edit out that link. Why are you trying to cover it up? 123.2.168.215 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome to make a case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but unless the community decides otherwise, I am going to treat this as POV pushing and COI. It sure looks like you're using this Korean site to publish your own original research and then cite it into Wikipedia. Please refrain from making further comments on my talk page. I am going to start a case at WP:COIN where you can discuss this with the community. - Jehochman Talk 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Bot archiving at WP:COIN
Hello Jehochman. After being nudged by Athaenara, I'm thinking of adding a bot archiving template to WP:COIN. Timeout is negotiable, but Athaenara has suggested 14 days. Let me know if you would object, since I know you are active on the noticeboard. EdJohnston 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Proxy puppets
I tried answering your query on the talk page at WP:SOCK, and found someone else having the same problem, so I tossed this out for consideration. If you want to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Zercle.com
Hi Jehochman,
Since you're into search, I thought I would inform you of Zercle, which is a new search engine that I've just launched to help people find all of the non-fiction books that are available in a given category, and at the same time help authors make sure that their books are easily discoverable by interested book consumers. I think we all know from bitter experience that compiling a complete list of books available in a category of interest on Amazon is either impossible or would require an infinite amount of time and effort. Yet, such a list is exactly what we need when we embark on the book shopping process.
Zercle works kind of like Wikipedia in that the "book groups" are created, edited and maintained by volunteer editors. Unlike Wikipedia, however, Zercle editors are required to register and are supposed to be "knowledgeable enough" in the book categories that they edit.
I've already started building a few groups on Zercle myself, in the "quantum mechanics" area, since I'm knowledgeable enough there (BS Physics). If you enter "quantum mechanics" into the Title box on the front page you'll see those groups. If you also enter, say, "Griffiths" into the Author box, you'll see the specific group which contains the QM book written by that author. I've only just started these groups, so none of them are yet complete. But, as I've already alluded, the idea is to eventually have groups that are complete, so that users can easily discover what books are available in their categories of interest, and authors can pretty much be guaranteed that users have an easy way of discovering their book.
Zercle editors will employ a unique method (which I think I invented) to extract the "main topics" and "threads" from the core subject of a book, and use this information to determine what group or groups a book belongs in (if a book's core subject has X threads, the book can be in up to X different groups, one for each thread). This analytical method may be a key breakthrough that allows Zercle to succeed in human-powered search where so many other engines have fallen short. (The Zercle system, if it works for books, may also be applicable to the Web in general.)
As yet, Zercle is definitely not "notable", since it was just launched and there's no big money behind it like with Mahalo. In fact, there's no money at all behind it. It took me four years (without income) to work out the Zercle system, so you can only imagine... But that's another story.
Please check out Zercle and follow the "About" link for more info. I think a lot of Wikipedians would make ideal Zercle editors, and some of them probably need a new editing outlet anyway, so I'm trying to figure out ways of informing them about Zercle without breaking Wikipedia policies. If you have any ideas about how I can get the message out (especially to Wikipedians and others who are conscientious and knowledgeable in nonfiction book categories) please let me know: paul at zercle dot com. By the way, you would probably make a great Zercle editor yourself in some category areas -- computer science, or whatever -- hint hint.
Thanks for your time, and I hope you find Zercle to be fun and useful. Any feedback such as comments, questions or suggestions is welcome.
Emwave 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Intellitrack-Inc.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
- Article page eComXpo
- See AfD Debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
- Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#EComXpo - still open, but discussion is relevant
- 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 Wikipedia 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> Talk! .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)
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. (Hypnosadist) 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 Talk 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep reading the thread you warned me from and you should get to it. (Hypnosadist) 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk 23:31, 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 Wikipedia article refers to blog postings by the principal authors of various specs. EdJohnston 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I received a funny email today from an attorney who claims that you railroaded her off Wikipedia. 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 Talk 05:08, 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 Wikipedia: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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia, except as a means of advertising. - Jehochman Talk 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)
Triple Crown
Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown in recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia. May you wear them well. DurovaCharge! 21:22, 3 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk 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. Wikipedia: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 Talk 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> Talk! .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> Talk! .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 Talk 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)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WOverstreet, not a marketing brochure. I suggest you have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. - Jehochman Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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)
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!
Marlith T/C 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! September 11 is generally a sad day, so it's nice to receive greetings. - Jehochman Talk 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk 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 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 Talk 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 Talk 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)